Result! Stroud Green to stay in Hornsey and Wood Green

Boundary Commission published it’s Revised proposals on 17.10.17 which sets out the new constituencies. Comments on the revised proposals can be submitted until 11.12.17. You can use the map on that page on their site to view the proposals, compare them with our initial proposals, your existing constituency and see how they relate to local government boundaries in your area.If you are interested to learn more about the 2018 Boundary Review watch this video 

The new Map showing in pink WoodSide ward is added to Tottenham and in Yellow additions to Hornsey and Wood Green

On their site the commission state: “In formulating our revised proposals we have reflected on all the written comments received during the previous two consultations and all the oral comments made at the public hearings.” You can comment on their revised proposals using the ‘Make a comment’ button on this page 

Stroud Green is mentioned 11 times In the Revised proposals we collated it all here:

3.47 There has been support for the initial proposals for the Tottenham constituency, which retained its existing composition with the addition of Stroud Green ward to bring it within the permitted electorate range. David Lammy (BCE-27611), Member of Parliament for Tottenham, was in full support of this new configuration including the addition of Stroud Green ward, stating: ‘I welcome your initial proposals which maintain the integrity of the current constituency boundaries of Tottenham with the addition of one extra Haringey Ward, Stroud Green’. Sir Stuart Lipton (BCE- 31339), also supported the proposals, underlining the importance of keeping the Tottenham wards together and not dividing Haringey Borough into multiple constituencies. He stated: ‘With complex problems, including the highest level of temporary accommodation in London, a transient population, failed estates, some of the highest levels of unemployment in London, a high level of crime, the lack of a town centre focus and a breakdown in relationships between the community and police … it is vitally important that the integrity of Tottenham as a constituency is maintained.’

3.48 However, there was also opposition to the specific inclusion of the Stroud Green ward. Lloyd Stacey (BCE-27284) and other respondents put forward the case against this on the basis of the manmade barrier of the East Coast Main Line: ‘Please don’t move the Stroud Green ward to the Tottenham constituency as it makes no logical sense. A seven track railway divides the two with only one road & one footbridge.’ Steve Bethell (BCE-29740) also supported this view: ‘I appreciate the difficulty of the task faced by the commission but while the proposal to move Stroud Green Ward into Tottenham keeps the constituency within the borough of Haringey it seems to ignore the real physical barrier of the railway which makes 24 Boundary Commission for England the people of Stroud Green associate more naturally with Crouch End and Hornsey than with Tottenham because of the lack of connecting roads or paths between them across the railway.’

3.49 Further counter-proposals were received that suggested transferring the Woodside ward, from the existing Hornsey and Wood Green constituency, into the Tottenham constituency. Resident Paul Soper (BCE-39752) stated: ‘It would make far more sense as I have suggested in my own separate submission for one of the Wood Green wards to be transferred to Tottenham – most logically Woodside Ward, this is not merely in a geographic sense contiguous with Tottenham as a borough, the main road that runs through the centre of Woodside ward is called White Hart Lane from which Tottenham Hotspur’s identity is taken.’ With this configuration the Stroud Green ward is returned to the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency, which brings it within the permitted electorate range following the loss of the Woodside ward.

3.50 In the initial proposals the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency retained nine of its existing wards and lost Stroud Green ward to the proposed Tottenham constituency.

This proposal was met with considerable opposition as detailed above. The Bowes ward was added to the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency from the existing Enfield Southgate constituency to bring it within the permitted electorate range. There was some support for this, from Catherine Johnstone (BCE-21061): ‘I fully support the aspect of the proposal to move Bowes Park ward from Enfield Southgate to Hornsey and Wood Green. Bowes Park lies entirely to the south of the A406, which forms a natural barrier. It is cut off from Southgate and all other parts of the Enfield Southgate constituency, and there is no sense at all of being part of the constituency. Most people who live in Bowes Park travel southwards for work or leisure. I have lived here for ten years but go to other parts of the constituency such as Southgate or Cockfosters maybe two or three times a year at most … It seems logical and proper that Bowes Park is included in a constituency with these areas. In addition, about half of the Bowes Park ward lies in Haringey council area, with only the northern part (where I live) in Enfield council area. This only adds to the disconnect of being remote from the Parliamentary constituency, as well as being cut off from the local authority area. If Bowes Park ward was in the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency, it might lead to changes at the local authority level as well. Although this may not be a consideration for the Boundary Commission, it is relevant to me and is another reason I support this change.’ However, there was also opposition from Marilyn Arnott (BCE-23072) and other respondents who supported her view: ‘I strongly oppose the boundary changes proposed for Bowes Ward, currently positioned within the Enfield Southgate constituency.’ Ms Arnott further commented that ‘Bowes Ward fits logically into Enfield Southgate with which it has strong historical, social, medical and transport links. These link us together as a strongly cohesive community and it is this which would be so badly damaged should we be reallocated in the manner proposed.

3.56 In light of the representations received, the assistant commissioners arranged a visit to the area, which reinforced their view that the Enfield Southgate concerns must be addressed, but also that they did not wish to divide the Tottenham area as a consequence. They also confirmed the evidence received that the Stroud Green ward was not easily accessed along its eastern border, there being, as stated, noting a lack of roads and footpaths connecting the ward to the Tottenham constituency.

3.62 The recommendations they put to us also allow the reuniting of Mill Hill in a Hendon constituency, which retains six wards from the existing constituency, and includes Golders Green ward to bring it within the permitted electorate range. The Woodside ward can be transferred into the Tottenham constituency, rather than the Stroud Green ward. We therefore accept the assistant commissioners’ recommendations for Enfield, Edmonton, Finchley and Enfield Southgate, Chipping Barnet, Hendon, Hornsey and Wood Green, and Tottenham constituencies.



Leave a Reply