Essex Final Recommendations

Braintree

Bocking, Braintree Eastern, Braintree Town, Halstead, Hedingham, Three Fields & Great Notley, Witham Town, and Witham West & Rural

52 Braintree district is allocated eight councillors under a council size of 78. Our draft recommendations for this district were broadly welcomed.

53 Essex County Council, the Conservative Group, and a sizeable number of local organisations and councillors supported our draft recommendations, with several submissions welcoming the clear distinction between urban- and rural-based divisions. In response to a question raised in our draft recommendation report, Cllr G. Butland provided evidence of links between the parishes of Great Notley and Black Notley but did not argue strongly for them to be placed in the same division. Placing these parishes together in either Three Fields & Great Notley or Witham West & Rural divisions would lead to both divisions having poor electoral equality without significant other changes. Given the broad support for our draft recommendations, we are not persuaded to make this change.

54 The Liberal Democrat Group, while broadly welcoming the draft recommendations, suggested that Black Notley could be added to Three Fields & Great Notley division, with Finchingfield and Wethersfield parishes moved into Hedingham to compensate. We considered this, but the change would not only increase the geographic size of the already large Hedingham division but would leave Witham West & Rural with 19% fewer electors per councillor than average. We have therefore not adopted this proposal.

55 A resident suggested that the schools along Rickstones Road should be placed in Witham Town, rather than Braintree Eastern division. While we consider that the schools are likely to serve those in Witham, this change would split Rivenhall parish between divisions, requiring the creation of a parish ward with very few electors. We do not consider that this is compatible with the need to ensure effective and convenient local government and have not adopted this proposal. We confirm our draft recommendations in this area, and across Braintree, as final.

Brentwood

Brentwood Hutton and Brentwood South

56 Discussion of our draft recommendations for Brentwood focused on these two divisions, and specifically our decision to move away from the existing pattern of divisions to place West Horndon parish in Brentwood South division, a decision which allowed all of Hutton South borough ward to be brought within Brentwood Hutton division.

57 This proposal attracted a mixed response. Essex County Council, Cllr D. Kendall, Brentwood & Ongar Liberal Democrats, West Horndon Parish Council, and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups on Essex County Council argued against our draft recommendations. They suggested that the key community links of West Horndon were along the A128, towards Herongate and Ingrave, rather than to the remainder of Brentwood South division. The parish council provided specific evidence of links to Herongate & Ingrave parish, citing planning issues around Dunton Hills Garden Village, and transport links along the A127 and A128.

58 Brentwood Council Labour Group broadly supported our proposed boundaries in this area but offered no fresh evidence to support their retention.

59 We have considered all the submissions in this area carefully. We are persuaded to amend our draft recommendations and adopt the proposal of the Council and others to revert to the existing division boundaries in this area as part of our final recommendations. We acknowledge that this leaves Hutton South ward split between divisions, as well as Brentwood South having a relatively high electoral variance of 12%. However, we consider that this is outweighed by the robust evidence provided that West Horndon shares community identities with the adjoining communities in Brentwood Hutton division.

Brentwood North and Brentwood Rural

60 The draft recommendations in this area were supported by Essex County Council, the Liberal Democrat Group and the Conservative Group. The Labour Group on Brentwood Council proposed alternative names for divisions, suggesting that Brentwood North could be renamed as either Brentwood Shenfield or Brentwood Pilgrims Hatch. They suggested that this would avoid confusion between divisions and wards sharing similar names. We considered this carefully, but in light of the broad support for our draft recommendations, we are not persuaded to change the names of these divisions. As with other divisions across Essex, the principal council can initiate a procedure to alter division names if desired. We confirm our draft recommendations for Brentwood North and Brentwood Rural divisions as final.

Castle Point

Canvey Island East, Canvey Island West, Hadleigh, South Benfleet, and Thundersley

61 No proposals to change the boundaries of divisions in Castle Point were received. Our draft recommendations were supported by Essex County Council, the Liberal Democrat Group, Conservative Group, Canvey Residents’ Alliance and Canvey Island Town Council, as well as several residents. Despite the high negative electoral variances in some divisions, we consider our recommendations provide an effective balance between our statutory criteria and therefore confirm them as final.

Chelmsford

Broomfield & Writtle and Chelmer

62 Discussion of these divisions focused around the area of Chelmsford Garden parish, and the newly formed Community Council in this area. Our draft recommendations split Chelmsford Garden parish between Chelmer and Broomfield & Writtle divisions, following ward boundaries where possible, and ensuring that both divisions had good electoral equality, albeit with relatively high variances of 9% and 7%, respectively.

63 Chelmsford Garden Community Council, Chelmsford City Council and the Liberal Democrat Group proposed uniting Chelmsford Garden parish within Chelmer division, moving the northern section of Chelmsford Garden parish and Little Waltham parish into Chelmer division and compensating for this by moving Great & Little Leighs parish into Broomfield & Writtle division. Some evidence was provided of schooling links, and it was argued that the rapidly developing nature of the Chelmsford Garden area should be reflected in a single division.

64 Our draft recommendations for this area were supported by Essex County Council, the Conservative Group on the Council and Chelmsford Constituency Conservative Association. The latter suggested that the proposal from the City Council had a political motivation. This last point is not one which we can consider. All of our decisions in this review have been informed by our three statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identities and interests, and effective and convenient local government.

65 We have carefully considered all the submissions received for this area. While the decision is finely balanced, we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area. Adopting the proposed changes would result in Broomfield & Writtle division having a relatively high electoral variance of 11%. While there are areas of Essex where we are recommending higher variances, we were not persuaded that sufficient evidence was received in respect of this specific area to justify the electoral inequality that would result.

66 We also note that the proposed change would split the city ward of Boreham & The Leighs with no other ward being united within a single division. It would also add to the size of the revised Broomfield & Writtle division. While large divisions in rural areas are more likely to occur, a division running from the north-eastern to south-western extremity of the City Council area is one we believe should be avoided, especially where alternatives exist which attracted support and evidence. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Broomfield & Writtle and Chelmer divisions as final.

Chelmsford Central, Chelmsford North,Chelmsford Springfield, Chelmsford West, Danbury & The Hanningfields, Great Baddow & Galleywood, and Woodham Ferrers

67 We received an alternative proposal for these divisions, and the rest of Chelmsford, from a resident with the support of Chelmsford Labour Party. This proposal was based on a hypothetical redrawing of a large number of City Council wards, which cannot be altered as part of this review. When recommending divisions, we must consider the existing City Council wards rather than those possibly arising from future changes. We have therefore not adopted the proposals from the resident.

68 The remainder of the divisions attracted broad support, including from the Council, Conservative Group and Liberal Democrat Group. Cllr C. Davidson expressed particular support for our proposed Chelmsford North division.

69 Cllr A. McQuiggan and Galleywood Parish Council suggested that the order of the names within the Great Barrow & Galleywood division be changed. We note that the existing division in this area is named just ‘Great Baddow’, and that a change to put the smaller settlement first in the name would be inconsistent with the arguments put forward with regard to name changes in Epping Forest (discussed below at paragraph 83). We are not persuaded to amend the name of our proposed division here, and confirm our recommendations for the names and boundaries of divisions across Chelmsford as final.

Colchester

Colchester Abbey, Colchester Lexden, Colchester Maypole, Colchester North, Colchester St Johns, Constable, and Wivenhoe St Andrew

70 Our draft recommendations for the boundaries of these divisions were supported by Essex County Council, the Conservative Group, and the Liberal Democrat Group. Essex County Council proposed renaming the division known as Colchester City in our draft recommendations as Colchester North, noting that the city extended significantly beyond this division. We are persuaded to adopt this suggestion and alter our draft recommendations accordingly.

71 The Council also suggested that the name of Colchester Lexden division could be expanded to include the settlement of Braiswick. We considered this but note that there is a Colchester City Council ward named Lexden & Braiswick, with very different boundaries to Lexden division. While we will, where appropriate, recommend names for divisions which mirror those of wards, we consider that in this case, the different areas covered would have the potential to lead to confusion, which would not be compatible with effective and convenient local government. We have therefore not adopted the proposed name change.

72 A resident suggested that the area between Crouch Street and Sheepen Road could be transferred from Colchester North to Colchester Lexden division, noting that this area was a popular leisure destination for Lexden residents. While accepting this evidence, we have no reason to believe that the leisure facilities in this area would not attract residents from Colchester North division, and the rest of the city. The proposed change would not improve electoral equality, and we decided not to adopt it as part of our final recommendations.

73 Cllr J. Law provided evidence of community identity relating to the Mylands East area and suggested that the boundary in this area could be moved to Mill Road, as opposed to our draft recommendations which placed the entire area in a rural-based Constable division.

74 We acknowledged in our draft recommendations report the difficulty in identifying a division pattern that fully reflected the community identity of the Mylands East area. We carefully considered the additional material provided by Cllr Law but have been unable to adopt her proposals. The area of Mylands East south of Mill Road contains roughly 1,800 electors, and adding these to the Colchester St Johns division would, in the absence of any compensating change, leave this division with an 18% electoral variance. All the neighbouring divisions have relatively high variances, and there is no solution that offers good electoral equality without completely recasting the division map of Colchester. Given the broad support received for the draft recommendations, we are not persuaded to alter them in this area.

Mersea & Tiptree and Stanway & Marks Tey

75 Our draft recommendations in this area were for two predominantly rural divisions, one ranging from Stanway to West Mersea, and one covering the south- west of the City Council area, from Marks Tey to Great & Little Wigborough. This attracted a mixed response, with support from the Council and Liberal Democrat groups. However, Stanway Parish Council objected to the parish being divided between divisions, and an alternative proposal was put forward by the Harwich & North Essex Conservative Association (HNECA), which supported the draft recommendations for the rest of the Colchester area. The Witham & District Co-operative party supported the submission of Stanway Parish Council.

76 The HNECA proposal was for Stanway to be linked to Marks Tey, and for a division to cover the southern edge of the City Council area, from Tiptree to East Mersea and Fingringhoe. Evidence was provided of links between coastal and river communities in the south, as well as a lack of any public transport links between Stanway and West Mersea. Conversely, the transport links between Stanway and Marks Tey, via Copford, were described as ‘very good’.

77 We considered the revised proposals carefully and are persuaded to amend our draft recommendations. We are modifying the HNECA proposals in one respect – it was proposed to place Layer Breton parish in Stanway & Marks Tey division, but we have decided to place this parish the Mersea and Tiptree division to the south, in order that our division pattern better reflects transport and communication links in the area.

78 Our final recommendations in this area are for Stanway & Marks Tey and Mersea & Tiptree divisions. Both are forecast to have good electoral equality, with variances of -1% and 9% respectively, by 2029.

Epping Forest

Chigwell & Buckhurst Hill East, Loughton North, and Loughton South & Buckhurst Hill West

79 We received mixed views on our draft recommendations for these divisions. The Council, Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups, the Epping Forest Conservative Association, and Cllrs S. Robinson, M. Vance, L. Scott, C. Whitbread and J. Whitehouse opposed our draft recommendations. They argued in favour of broadly retaining the existing divisions in this area, which link a section of eastern Loughton to Chigwell. They argued that Buckhurst Hill being split between divisions would not reflect the community identity of this area, and that our proposed boundary along the railway line was not a clear dividing line.

80 In contrast, our draft recommendations were supported by a number of local residents, as well as the Loughton Residents’ Association, and Cllrs C. Pond, S. Murray, R. Brookes, H. Kaufmann, and G. Wiskin. They argued that Loughton Broadway had little community identity with Chigwell, and that the draft recommendations offered the best available balance of the statutory criteria.

81 We have considered all the submissions received for this area carefully, and we visited this area on our visit to Essex. It is necessary for Chigwell to be paired with a neighbouring area in order to achieve good electoral equality so, given the geography and its position at the edge of the district, the options are essentially limited to Buckhurst Hill or a portion of Loughton. Some of the objections to our draft recommendations noted that the journey from Buckhurst Hill to Chigwell involves crossing the M25 and the River Roding – while we acknowledge this, we note that the same is true of the journey between Chigwell and Loughton Broadway.

82 Several submissions commented that, while clear on a map, the railway line through Buckhurst Hill does not offer a particularly strong boundary in practice. On our tour of Essex, we agreed with this observation, but also considered that the proposed boundary in the north of Loughton is neither strong nor clear – roads such as Westall Road, Burney Drive, and Castell Road appear to be surrounded by a single community rather than offering a clear divide.

83 We consider this decision to be particularly finely balanced. We have carefully considered the evidence received and have decided not to amend our draft recommendations. Accommodating both the expressed views on community identities and achieving an effective balance of all our statutory criteria is not possible. We note that travel from Buckhurst Hill to Chigwell along the B170 Roding Lane is a shorter journey than the one to Loughton Broadway, and that retaining our draft recommendations allows an extra district ward to be coterminous with divisions, providing for more effective and convenient local government.

84 Several submissions commented on the name of the division covering both Buckhurst Hill and Loughton, suggesting that, as the majority of electors in this division would be in Loughton parish, this name should appear first. While we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations for this division name, given the broad local support for such a change, we do not consider as a general rule that appearing first in any compound name of a ward or division necessarily implies precedence, or that the first named settlement should always be the largest within an electoral area. Our division names for a given area will always be based on the evidence we receive for that specific area.

Epping & Theydon Bois, North Weald & Nazeing, Ongar & Rural, and Waltham Abbey

85 The Council proposed changes to our draft recommendations, including splitting Nazeing and North Weald Bassett parishes between divisions, and placing Matching and Sheering parishes in a division wrapping around the southern edge of Harlow. As well as creating a division which would be challenging to represent effectively, this would also split several additional district wards between divisions. Limited evidence of community identity was provided, and we have not adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

86 Cllr C. Whitbread provided some evidence of school and transport links between the Thornwood Common area and Epping. However, in isolation, moving this area out of North Weald & Nazeing division would leave this division with a -15% electoral variance. We are not persuaded that sufficient evidence was provided to justify such a variance in this area and have therefore not adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

87 Several submissions welcomed the continuation of the link between Coopersale and Epping, rather than placing Coopersale into Ongar & Rural division. Epping Forest Conservative Association expressed concerns about the size of Ongar & Rural division, while this division was supported by Cllrs J. McIvor and J Whitehouse. Cllr McIvor noted that the rural parishes across the division were likely to share similar issues.

88 We acknowledge that Ongar & Rural division is geographically large, although not significantly more so than other rural divisions across Essex. We considered reducing the size of this division by moving Stapleford Abbotts parish into Chigwell & Buckhurst East division, but in the absence of community identity evidence to support this move, we concluded that leaving the draft recommendations in place provided the best available balance of our statutory criteria. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Harlow

Harlow Common & Church Langley, Harlow Netteswell, Harlow Parndon & Toddbrook, Harlow South West, and Old Harlow

89 Our draft recommendations for Harlow were supported by Essex County Council, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups, and Harlow Constituency Labour Party.

90 Harlow District Council proposed several changes to the draft recommendations, based on a desire for divisions to align with existing polling districts. Some of the changes proposed were relatively minor, but in one instance, the changes proposed would remove roughly 600 electors from Harlow Parndon & Toddbrook division, leaving this division with a -12% variance. In any event, a desire to reflect existing polling district boundaries, which exist for the purpose of administering elections, is not a matter we consider as part of an electoral review.

91 We are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in Harlow and confirm them as final.

Maldon

Burnham & Southminster and Maldon Rural South

92 Our draft recommendations for these divisions were supported by Essex County Council, and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups. We received no other proposals for this area and confirm our draft recommendations as final.

Maldon Rural North and Maldon Town & Heybridge

93 The key question for these divisions was which Heybridge ward should be added to the wards of Maldon North, Maldon South and Maldon West to comprise an urban-based division. In our draft recommendations, we proposed that Heybridge East be added to the Maldon wards, and this was supported by the Council and Conservative Group. Our draft recommendations did outline the potential for a two-councillor division, allowing Maldon and Heybridge to be within a single division, but this did not attract any support.

94 Cllr J. Driver renewed his suggestion from our initial consultation that Heybridge West, rather than Heybridge East, should be added to Maldon Town & Heybridge division. Cllr Driver, whose proposal was supported by the Liberal Democrat Group, noted the different nature of the ward in question, and that the fishing lakes straddling the boundary between Heybridge East and Great Totham wards were a key shared resource for both communities.

95 We visited this area on our tour of Essex. While we still consider that the decision is finely balanced, we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations, and place Heybridge West ward within Maldon Town & Heybridge division, with Heybridge East being placed in Maldon Rural North division. We consider that the housing and retail facilities of Heybridge West share more in common with an urban division than those in Heybridge East, while continuing to note that, were it not for the constraints of electoral equality, we would prefer to keep all of Heybridge together in a single division.

Rochford

Rayleigh South, Rayleigh West, Rochford East, Rochford North, and Rochford South

96 Other than the submissions from Essex County Council, and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups, we received no comments on our proposed divisions in Rochford. All of the submissions received supported our draft recommendations, and we confirm these as final.

Tendring

Brightlingsea and Clacton West & St Osyth

97 We received varying views on our draft recommendations in the south-west of Tendring. Essex County Council and the Liberal Democrat Group supported our draft recommendations, which placed a division boundary along Brightlingsea Creek, with St Osyth parish placed in our proposed Clacton West division.

98 An alternative proposal, supported by the Conservative Group, Cllr P. Honeywood and Cllr A. Goggin, was received from Harwich & North Essex Conservative Association (HNECA), with the support of Tendring Conservative Group. This placed the majority of St Osyth parish in a division with Brightlingsea, with the Association citing shared links around schooling and leisure facilities, (particularly between Point Clear, directly across the creek from Brightlingsea and Brightlingsea itself) in support of its proposal.

99 In order to achieve good electoral equality, the HNECA proposal placed a small portion of St Osyth parish north of St John’s Road into a revised Clacton West/ Clacton Coastal division. This would split St Osyth district ward, reducing the level of coterminosity.

100 The HNECA proposed redrawing the divisions covering Clacton, in order to allow for the removal of most of St Osyth parish. While the proposed divisions offered good electoral equality, the proposed Clacton Central division extended from Rush Green to Holland-on-Sea, offering limited connectivity and joining areas with no obvious community identity. The HNECA noted that its proposal followed polling district boundaries whereas the draft recommendations did not – however, we do not consider that polling districts necessarily offer a good reflection of community identity, as they exist for the purpose of electoral administration.

101 We visited Brightlingsea on our tour of Essex, and viewed the location of the ferry links which were suggested as a key transport link in the HNECA submission. We noted that the ferry cannot take vehicles and operates only from April–September. We consider that, while there are shared interests between Point Clear and Brightlingsea, a seasonal and limited ferry service may not form a key link to allow accessibility within the proposed division. We are therefore not persuaded to alter our proposed boundaries and confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

102 Additionally, we could not identify a division pattern that places St Osyth in a different division and provides for an effective balance of our statutory criteria. Furthermore, it should be noted that it is not unusual for separate but neighbouring communities to be within a single division. However, we do consider it would be appropriate to add the name of the parish to that of Clacton West division. We are therefore amending the name of Clacton West division to Clacton West & St Osyth as part of our final recommendations.

Clacton North, Clacton South, Frinton & Walton, Harwich, Tendring Rural East, and Tendring Rural West

103 Other than the changes proposed for divisions within Clacton discussed above, we received no proposals for changes to these divisions. We received support from Essex County Council, and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups for the draft recommendations outside of Clacton, and we confirm these draft recommendations as final.