New electoral arrangements for Enfield CouncilDraft recommendationsMay 2019

Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, pleasecontact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crowncopyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best effortshave been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report arerepresentative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variationsbetween these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or thedigital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in whichthe final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to eitherthe large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness ofthe boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map orthe digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 

Who we are and what we do 1 

What is an electoral review? 1 

Why Enfield? 2 

Our proposals for Enfield 2 

How will the recommendations affect you? 2 

Have your say 3 

Review timetable 3 

Analysis and draft recommendations 5 

Submissions received 5 

Electorate figures 5 

Number of councillors 6 

Ward boundaries consultation 6 

Draft recommendations 6 

Edmonton 9 

New Southgate and Bowes 11 

North and central Enfield 13 

North-east Enfield 15 

Southgate and Cockfosters 17 

Conclusions 22 

Summary of electoral arrangements 22 

Have your say 23 

Equalities 27 

Appendices 29 

Appendix A 29 

Draft recommendations for Enfield 29 

Appendix B 31 

Outline map 31 

31 

Appendix C 32 

Submissions received 32 

Appendix D 33 

Glossary and abbreviations 33 

1

Introduction

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1.We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England. 2 The members of the Commission are:

Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair)

Susan Johnson OBE Peter Maddison QPM Amanda Nobbs OBE

Steve Robinson Andrew Scallan CBE Jolyon Jackson CBE

(Chief Executive)

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

How many councillors are needed. How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their

boundaries are and what they should be called. How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents.

Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local

government. 5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

2

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Enfield?

7 We are conducting a review of Enfield Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Enfield. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal. 8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

The wards in Enfield are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively.

The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Enfield

9 Enfield should be represented by 63 councillors, the same number as there are now. 10 Enfield should have 26 wards, five more than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward. Your ward name may also change. 13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

3

Have your say

14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a ten-week period, from 28 May 2019 to 5 August 2019. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations. 15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 5 August 2019 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 23 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable

17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Enfield. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations. 18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

20 November 2018 Number of councillors decided

27 November 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards

4 February 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations

28 May 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second consultation

5 August 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations

29 October 2019 Publication of final recommendations

4

5

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2018 2024

Electorate of Enfield 213,665 242,846

Number of councillors 63 63

Average number of electors per councillor

3,392 3,855

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Enfield will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received

23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 14% by 2024. 25 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

6

Number of councillors

26 Enfield Council currently has 63 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively. 27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 63 councillors – for example, 63 one-councillor wards, 21 three-councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards. 28 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns. We therefore based our draft recommendations on a 63-councillor council.

Ward boundaries consultation

29 We received five submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included one locally generated borough-wide proposal from Enfield North Conservative Association. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough. 30 The borough-wide scheme proposed a mixed pattern of two- and three-councillor wards for Enfield. We carefully considered the proposal and were of the view that the proposed pattern of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

31 Our draft recommendations take into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

32 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Enfield helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

Draft recommendations

33 Our draft recommendations are for eleven three-councillor wards and fifteen two-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

7

34 The tables and maps on pages 8–19 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Enfield. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

Equality of representation. Reflecting community interests and identities. Providing for effective and convenient local government.

35 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

36 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

9

Edmonton

Ward name Number of councillors

Variance 2024

Edmonton Green 3 -3%

Haselbury 3 4%

Jubilee 3 -4%

Lower Edmonton 3 -4%

Upper Edmonton 3 6%

Edmonton Green, Haselbury, Jubilee, Lower Edmonton and Upper Edmonton 37 The only submission we received for this area was the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. The wards proposed were similar to the current wards, with some adjustments to ensure good electoral equality and to improve community identity. None of the wards crossed the A10 or the North Circular which, the submission stated, are major community boundaries in this part of the borough. 38 The biggest change from the current wards was proposed to the current Upper Edmonton ward, which is projected to see a considerable growth in its electorate due to the development at Meridian Water. The submission argued that it was not appropriate for a ward to straddle the North Circular in this part of the borough due to

10

the substantial boundary it creates. Instead, it was proposed that the A10 forms the western boundary of the ward, which gives it good electoral equality. 39 The current Jubilee ward is also forecast to have poor electoral equality in 2024 without changes to its boundaries. The submission proposed adding streets in the Forest Road and Norfolk Road areas to improve electoral equality. It was also argued that the streets south of Edmonton County School related more to the current Haselbury ward and so should be included in it. 40 Finally, the scheme proposed minor changes between Edmonton Green, Haselbury and Lower Edmonton wards to ensure good electoral equality due to the changes made to Jubilee ward and to create clearer boundaries. 41 We have carefully considered the scheme for Edmonton, noting that we received no other submissions for this area. All the proposed wards have good electoral equality and some evidence has been provided regarding community identity and the strength of the boundaries. Therefore, we are adopting the Edmonton Green, Haselbury, Jubilee, Lower Edmonton and Upper Edmonton wards proposed by Enfield North Conservative Association without amendment as part of our draft recommendations.

11

New Southgate and Bowes

Ward name Number of councillors

Variance 2024

Bowes 2 5%

New Southgate 2 6%

Bowes and New Southgate 42 We received two submissions that referred to this area in addition to the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. Weir Hall Ratepayers’ Association stated that Devonia Gardens and Empire Avenue should be part of Upper Edmonton ward. Enfield Southgate Conservative Association argued that the boundaries of the current wards in this area should not be changed as they are projected to have good electoral equality in 2024 and they are familiar to residents. 43 Enfield North Conservative Association pointed out that their proposals for these wards are affected by the changes to Upper Edmonton ward which, without changes to its current boundaries, would have an electoral variance of 25% in 2024. Given the strength of the North Circular as a barrier, particularly in the eastern part of the borough, it was pointed out that the boundaries of the current Bowes ward needed to be changed to include electors from the current Upper Edmonton ward. In relation to New Southgate ward, the submission argued that New Southgate is

12

separate to the community north of Bowes Road and is served by its own railway station. While the proposed New Southgate ward did cross the North Circular, it was stated that this was necessary to ensure good electoral equality and that the North Circular was less of a barrier here than in other areas. 44 While we have noted the comments of Enfield Southgate Conservative Association, we consider that they provided no evidence to explain why the current wards are a good reflection of local communities. Their submission also did not address the high level of electoral inequality in the current Upper Edmonton ward, which, as noted above, has had a major knock-on effect on the warding pattern in this area. 45 Similarly, for reasons of electoral equality, we have not been persuaded to include Devonia Gardens and Empire Avenue in Upper Edmonton ward. However, we are proposing that both streets are warded with those to their immediate north in our Bowes ward. We consider that this will better reflect their community ties than the current warding arrangement. 46 Therefore, we are adopting the Bowes and New Southgate wards proposed in the borough-wide scheme in this area as part of our draft recommendations. They both have good electoral equality and some evidence has been provided regarding their community identity and the strength of the boundaries.

13

North and central Enfield

Ward name Number of councillors

Variance 2024

Bush Hill Park 2 -1%

Kingsmead 2 -1%

Oakwood 2 -2%

Ridgeway 3 5%

Town 3 -2%

Whitewebbs 3 0%

Bush Hill Park, Kingsmead, Town and Whitewebbs 47 The only submission we received for this area was the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. In support of its wards, the submission argued that its Bush Hill Park ward was centred on the community that looks to Bush Hill Park station. The proposed Kingsmead ward contained communities that are entirely to the west of the A10 and had Kingsmead School at its centre. Town ward placed all of Enfield town centre, including key facilities such as the library and the main shopping area, in one ward. Finally, Whitewebbs ward was a geographically smaller and more coherent version of the current Chase ward. 48 We visited this area to view the borough-wide scheme on the ground and consider the evidence in relation to Town ward to be particularly persuasive. We

14

consider that the current Town ward splits the town centre and that effective and convenient local government will be enhanced by the whole business area being represented in one ward rather than two. We have made one small amendment to the borough-wide scheme between the proposed Town and Kingsmead wards so that all the flats on Roseneath Walk are in Town ward. 49 Given that the proposed Town ward is substantially different to the current wards and we received no other proposals for this area, we are adopting the other wards proposed in the borough-wide scheme as part of our draft recommendations. We note that they all have good electoral equality and the submission provided some evidence regarding community identity and the strength of the boundaries. Oakwood and Ridgeway 50 We received two submissions that referred to this area in addition to the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. Western Enfield Residents’ Association argued that the current Highlands ward should be retained as there was no appetite amongst its members for changes to its boundaries. However, it proposed that the ward is renamed ‘Merryhills’ after Merryhills Primary School, Merryhills Brook and Merryhills Drive. A resident supported this name change. He also proposed that all of Windmill Hill should be in one ward as this would be less confusing to residents and local organisations such as the police. 51 The borough-wide scheme proposed Oakwood and Ridgeway wards that were substantially different from the current wards in this area. It argued that its Oakwood ward included communities south of Oakwood Park and Enfield Golf Course including the Highlands Village development. The proposed Ridgeway ward reunited communities that sat alongside The Ridgeway, a major route in the northern part of the borough. It contained both sides of Windmill Hill west of the railway line. It also included the community of Hadley Wood on the edge of the borough, which has too few electors for a single-councillor ward. 52 We have carefully considered the proposals for this area. We note that Western Enfield Residents’ Association provided little evidence in its submission of what links the different parts of the current Highlands ward beyond residents’ membership of the Residents’ Association. Retaining the current Highlands ward would require us to make substantial changes to the other wards proposed in the borough-wide scheme to ensure good electoral equality. These changes would be made without any evidence, and we are therefore not persuaded to retain the existing ward. Accordingly, we are adopting the Oakwood and Ridgeway wards proposed by Enfield North Conservative Association subject to a small amendment. When we visited, we considered Salmon’s Brook to be a much clearer boundary than that proposed east of Slades Gardens, Slades Rise and Hunting Gate Close. We have amended the borough-wide scheme accordingly in our draft recommendations.

15

North-east Enfield

Ward name Number of councillors

Variance 2024

Brimsdown 3 0%

Bullsmoor 2 6%

Enfield Lock 3 4%

Hoe Lane 2 3%

Ponders End 2 6%

Brimsdown, Bullsmoor, Enfield Lock, Hoe Lane and Ponders End 53 The only submission we received for this area was the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. In support of its wards, the submission argued that its Brimsdown ward was a good reflection of the community around Brimsdown Station, Brimsdown Avenue and Brimsdown Primary School. The proposed Bullsmoor ward was a good representation of the community that exists between the A10 and Hertford Road in the northern part of the borough. The proposed Enfield Lock ward was almost identical to the current ward of the same name and contained a distinct community. Hoe Lane ward contained a community that, it was stated, was split between the current Southbury and Turkey Street wards. Finally, Ponders End ward covered the distinct community in that area which uses Ponders End station.

16

54 We note that an important premise of the submission is that no ward should cross the A10. This meant that Hoe Lane ward in particular represents a significant change to the current wards in this part of the borough. We visited the area and agree that the A10 is a significant barrier and there appears to be little that links the communities either side of the road. 55 Part of the northern boundary of the borough-wide submission’s Hoe Lane ward runs between houses on Dell Road and Winnington Road. When we visited, we considered this boundary to be unclear and potentially confusing to local residents. Accordingly, we are placing the boundary between The Loning and Mapleton Crescent. 56 All the wards proposed in the borough-wide submission in this area have good electoral equality and some evidence has been provided regarding community identity and the strength of the boundaries. Therefore, we are adopting the Brimsdown, Bullsmoor, Enfield Lock, Hoe Lane and Ponders End wards proposed by Enfield North Conservative Association as part of our draft recommendations subject to the amendment between Bullsmoor and Hoe Lane wards discussed in the previous paragraph.

17

Southgate and Cockfosters

Ward name Number of councillors

Variance 2024

Arnos Grove 2 -4%

Cockfosters 2 -6%

Grange Park 2 0%

Highfield 2 -1%

Palmers Green 2 -2%

Raglan 2 -5%

Southgate 3 -7%

Winchmore Hill 2 -1%

Arnos Grove, Cockfosters, Grange Park, Palmers Green, Southgate and Winchmore Hill 57 We received one submission that referred to this area, in addition to the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. Enfield Southgate Conservative Association argued that the current boundaries of the wards in this area should not be changed as they are projected to have good electoral equality in 2024 and their boundaries are familiar to residents. 58 In support of the wards it proposed, Enfield North Conservative Association argued that its Arnos Grove ward better reflected the community north of Bowes

18

Road. Its two-councillor Cockfosters ward was smaller than the current ward of the same name and only included the community around Cockfosters station and the shopping area. The proposed Grange Park ward was centred on Grange Park station and better reflected the community in that area rather than the larger existing Grange ward that included part of Enfield town centre. The two-councillor Palmers Green ward was based on the station of the same name and the large shopping centre on and around Green Lanes. The proposed Southgate ward was similar to the current ward of the same name but with some modifications to its northern and southern boundaries. Finally, the submission stated that Winchmore Hill was a distinct community but, as it pointed out, its boundaries are not easy to define so the boundaries had primarily been chosen to ensure good electoral equality. 59 We have noted the comments of Enfield Southgate Conservative Association, but given our decisions, discussed in paragraphs 42–6 (above), in relation to our proposed Bowes and New Southgate wards we are not persuaded to retain the existing wards. The changes to the neighbouring Bowes and New Southgate wards are necessary due to the substantial amount of growth projected to take place in the current Upper Edmonton ward and retaining the existing wards as proposed by the Enfield Southgate Conservative Association does not facilitate these changes. We recognise that retaining the existing wards may reflect community identity but no evidence was provided in relation to this. Given our need to provide for good levels of electoral equality across the borough, we are not persuaded to adopt its proposals. 60 We note that the borough-wide scheme proposes substantial changes in this part of the borough, and we spent some time here on our tour of Enfield. In particular, we considered the clarity of the proposed boundaries around Fox Lane where Arnos Grove, Palmers Green, Southgate and Winchmore Hill wards meet. We also carefully assessed the boundary between the proposed Cockfosters and Southgate wards. 61 We note that the proposed Arnos Grove ward contains streets to the east of Cannon Hill. While Cannon Hill appeared to us to be a more natural boundary than the one proposed, we note that using it and making no other changes would lead to an electoral variance of -22% in Arnos Grove ward. However, we note that the current three-councillor Southgate Green ward crosses not only Cannon Hill but Bowes Road and a small part of the North Circular so, arguably, it already contains more than one community. We do not consider the current boundaries on St George’s Road and The Greenway to mark clear differences between communities. We consider that the proposed two-councillor Arnos Grove ward contains a smaller number of communities than the current ward and has good electoral equality, therefore we are including it in our draft recommendations.

19

62 We are proposing one small amendment to the borough-wide scheme between Arnos Grove and Southgate wards. When we visited, we considered that the boundary between houses on Oakfield Road was unclear and potentially confusing to residents. Therefore, we are placing all of Oakfield Road in our Arnos Grove ward. 63 We considered placing the boundary between Palmers Green and Winchmore Hill wards on Bourne Hill to create a clearer boundary. However, this change would lead to an electoral variance of -12% in Winchmore Hill ward. Further changes to the boundaries of Winchmore Hill would be required to ensure good electoral equality and we are not persuaded to make these at this stage without any evidence to support them. 64 When we visited Enfield, we also looked at the boundary between Cockfosters and Southgate wards proposed in the borough-wide scheme, noting that the boundary cut through the New Avenue development. We prefer that new developments are wholly contained in one ward and note that no evidence was provided as to why this boundary had been chosen. The boundary on Trent Gardens and Hood Avenue also appeared to split the community in this area. We consider that the current ward boundary on Avenue Road to be much clearer than that proposed in the borough-wide scheme and so are using it in our draft recommendations. 65 All the wards proposed in the borough-wide submission in this area have good electoral equality and some evidence has been provided regarding community identity and the strength of the boundaries. Therefore, subject to the amendments discussed above between Cockfosters and Southgate wards and Arnos Grove and Southgate wards, we are adopting the Arnos Grove, Cockfosters, Grange Park, Palmers Green, Southgate and Winchmore Hill wards proposed by Enfield North Conservative Association as part of our draft recommendations. Highfield and Raglan 66 The only submission we received for this area was the borough-wide scheme from Enfield North Conservative Association. In support of its wards, the submission argued that the proposed Highfield ward was similar to a ward that existed in the area prior to the last review. The proposed ward also had clear boundaries as it used the A10 to the east, the North Circular to the south, New River to the west and Edmonton Cemetery to the north. The proposed Raglan ward consisted mostly of part of the current Bush Hill Park ward that Enfield North Conservative Association considered did not identify with that area. 67 We have carefully considered the scheme for this area, noting that we received no other submissions. Both the proposed wards have good electoral equality and some evidence has been provided regarding community identity and the strength of the boundaries. Therefore, we are adopting the Highfield and Raglan wards

20

proposed by Enfield North Conservative Association without amendment as part of our draft recommendations.

21

22

Conclusions

68 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Enfield, referencing the 2018 and 2024 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2018 2024

Number of councillors 63 63

Number of electoral wards 26 26

Average number of electors per councillor 3,392 3,855

Number of wards with a variance more than 10% from the average

0 0

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% from the average

0 0

Draft recommendations

Enfield should be made up of 63 councillors serving 26 wards, representing 15 two-councillor wards and 11 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Enfield. You can also view our draft recommendations for Enfield on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

23

Have your say

69 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it. 70 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Enfield, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards. 71 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk 72 Submissions can also be made by emailing reviews@lgbce.org.uk or by writing to:

Review Officer (Enfield) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

73 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Enfield which delivers:

Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters.

Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge

its responsibilities effectively. 74 A good pattern of wards should:

Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters.

Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links.

Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

24

75 Electoral equality:

Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Enfield?

76 Community identity:

Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?

Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?

Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

77 Effective local government:

Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively?

Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of

public transport? 78 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period. 79 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from. 80 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations. 81 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

25

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Enfield Council in 2022.

26

27

Equalities 82 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

28

29

Appendices

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Enfield

Ward name Number of councillors

Electorate (2018)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2024)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from average

%

1 Arnos Grove 2 6,199 3,100 -9% 7,377 3,689 -4%

2 Bowes 2 6,984 3,492 3% 8,111 4,056 5%

3 Brimsdown 3 10,408 3,469 2% 11,617 3,872 0%

4 Bullsmoor 2 7,308 3,654 8% 8,164 4,082 6%

5 Bush Hill Park 2 6,916 3,458 2% 7,668 3,834 -1%

6 Cockfosters 2 6,420 3,210 -5% 7,223 3,612 -6%

7 Edmonton Green 3 10,070 3,357 -1% 11,214 3,738 -3%

8 Enfield Lock 3 10,767 3,589 6% 11,984 3,995 4%

9 Grange Park 2 6,939 3,470 2% 7,720 3,860 0%

10 Haselbury 3 10,847 3,616 7% 12,064 4,021 4%

11 Highfield 2 6,840 3,420 1% 7,600 3,800 -1%

12 Hoe Lane 2 7,135 3,568 5% 7,937 3,969 3%

13 Jubilee 3 9,907 3,302 -3% 11,095 3,698 -4%

14 Kingsmead 2 6,800 3,400 0% 7,596 3,798 -1%

30

Ward name Number of councillors

Electorate (2018)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2024)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from average

%

15 Lower Edmonton 3 10,030 3,343 -1% 11,048 3,683 -4%

16 New Southgate 2 7,018 3,509 3% 8,142 4,071 6%

17 Oakwood 2 6,348 3,174 -6% 7,554 3,777 -2%

18 Palmers Green 2 6,756 3,378 0% 7,564 3,782 -2%

19 Ponders End 2 6,992 3,496 3% 8,152 4,076 6%

20 Raglan 2 6,596 3,298 -3% 7,345 3,673 -5%

21 Ridgeway 3 10,463 3,488 3% 12,152 4,051 5%

22 Southgate 3 9,604 3,201 -6% 10,768 3,589 -7%

23 Town 3 9,846 3,282 -3% 11,295 3,765 -2%

24 Upper Edmonton 3 9,358 3,119 -8% 12,308 4,103 6%

25 Whitewebbs 3 10,326 3,442 1% 11,552 3,851 0%

26 Winchmore Hill 2 6,788 3,394 0% 7,596 3,798 -1%

Totals 63 213,665 – – 242,846 – –

Averages – – 3,392 – – 3,855 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Enfield Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

31

Appendix B

Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/enfield

32

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/enfield Political Groups

Enfield North Conservative Association Enfield Southgate Conservative Association

Local Organisations

Weir Hall Ratepayers’ Association Western Enfield Residents’ Association

Local Resident

One local resident

33

Appendix D

Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

34

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral arrangements

The total number of councillors on any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.

Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.ukOnline: www.lgbce.org.uk orwww.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE