Last year the Boundary Commission published its initial proposals for changes to the parliamentary boundaries in England & Wales as it is obliged to do every 10 years or so. The proposals for West Sussex were quite substantial, not least to accommodate part of a new constituency which will straddle the East/West Sussex border to cater for the increased population across Sussex.
In the case of East Worthing & Shoreham the initial proposal was to reunite Worthing into one constituency as was previously the case before 1997. The new Shoreham constituency would instead consist of Adur wards and stretch out northwards to include several towns and villages within the ‘Adur Valley.’ These proposals were largely welcomed and together with other West Sussex MPs Tim supported a submission which suggested a few changes including Sompting within the new Shoreham seat which illogically had been initially cut off from Adur to join Worthing.
Last week the Boundary Commission produced its revised proposals which would be another radical shakeup including: some very major surgery to the west of the county so that most of the Chichester District will be outside the Chichester constituency; Worthing will be a hotch-potch of Worthing and Arun wards and not reunited; and East Worthing & Shoreham remains unchanged despite the growing population and traditional links between the coastal towns and Sussex Downland where over 52% of Adur district lies within the rural South Downs National Park. The new proposals have set the cat amongst the pigeons and Tim and many others will be writing in as part of the latest consultation with revised counter-proposals.
These are Tim’s initial thoughts below as well as his original submission welcoming the original plans. Anyone is entitled to write in as part of the consultation but you only have until December 5th to do so. You can view the proposals here and submit comments here and Tim would very much urge you to make your views known and would be happy to discuss the details with you if that would be helpful.
Tim's submission on Boundary Commission's revised proposals, November 2022
Dear Sir
Revised proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in Sussex
I am writing to give my views and express my concerns over the revised proposals for new parliamentary constituency boundaries specifically as they affect West Sussex. I am writing as the sitting Member of Parliament for the West Sussex constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham, and this follows from the submission I made to the original proposals in July 2021.
The proposals published last year represented radical changes for the current West Sussex constituencies underlined by the need to create additional representation because of a growing population. This was achieved by the creation of a new cross-county boundary constituency which, whilst not ideal, was largely accepted. Those proposals were subject to a full 8-week consultation period followed by detailed analysis and public hearings, one of which I attended and made a submission.
The consultation for the revised proposals is just 4 weeks and with no public hearings included for detailed consideration. Yet the revised proposals are equally radical as the original ones but are very different so that there will be very limited time to consider completely new proposals. For example, more than half of the geographical area of the original Chichester constituency is to be moved into the revised Arundel South Downs constituency. More than half of the area covered by Chichester District Council will no longer be within the Chichester constituency. This has not been considered in previous consultations and I cannot see resulted from any particularly strong responses to the consultation. Where did this come from?
It is also the case that many of the proposals were widely welcomed across the county and the changes recommended by political parties, including the Conservative Party, were in favour with limited recommendations for improvements. Not surprisingly those residents broadly content with the proposed changes were less inclined to submit formal responses to the consultation as those who held a major grievance.
As your commentary points out there was a particularly high response rate from Arundel South Downs constituency which was not surprising given the high-profile proactive campaign by the sitting member for Arundel South Downs which gave rise to a significant number of objections to being moved into a new constituency with a bigger urban element. The member for Arundel South Downs has submitted the findings of his own survey and many residents reference his views when submitting their own objections.
This appears to have exerted a disproportionate influence on the Boundary Commission’s revised findings, yet a closer analysis of the consultation responses from the Arundel South Downs constituency shows that most responses originate from residents of two divisions – Pulborough, Coldwaltham and Amberley and Storrington/Washington. They account for more than half of responses and the recurrent theme is that it would not be appropriate for these divisions to be part of a new constituency which contains larger urban areas, and they should remain in an exclusively rural constituency. Having looked at the criteria for other boundary changes elsewhere in England I cannot find evidence of exclusive rurality being a recognised criteria used by the Boundary Commission nor is it mentioned in the original consultation documents you have issued. Why has it exerted such an overriding ‘veto’ here?
Some of the submissions resulting from this survey almost appear to be based on a misunderstanding that in some way being placed in a different constituency will result in limited movement because two communities are no longer part of the same parliamentary division. This is of course nonsense. Local taxes are not paid based on constituency boundaries; bus and train links do not recognise constituency boundaries; settlements are not somehow split because they fall within different parliamentary constituencies. One of the more illogical submissions from a Storrington resident claims ‘moving Storrington and Washington to the new Shoreham constituency would see them separated from some of their nearest neighbours.’ In what way will they be separated? Washington and Storrington remain within the Horsham District; their nearest main town is Arundel which is already in the Arun District. Nothing changes and it is misleading to claim otherwise, which seems to have disproportionately and worryingly influenced many of the submissions from these divisions.
As I stated in my original submission Sussex has traditionally comprised of constituencies covering a mix of rural, urban and coastal settlements. This has indeed been the historic origin of north-south government boundaries in Sussex since the time of the medieval Sussex rapes. Furthermore, the towns who have raised the strongest objections have in the recent past been part of mixed urban/rural constituencies containing the likes of Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Shoreham and Horsham. However, if this is now to be instituted as a major criterion for the Boundary Commission the submission I made, supported by Sussex Conservatives and all sitting MPs in West Sussex, supported the retention of the Pulborough and Storrington divisions in the Arundel South Downs constituency which you intend to retain as exclusively rural.
There were a number of submissions from market towns and villages north of Shoreham which expressed support for the new Shoreham constituency as they are southward facing and look to Shoreham for their major services rather than Horsham which is much further away. Hence my suggestion that the new constituency could be renamed as ‘Adur Valley’ to reflect this. These submissions have all been ignored. Instead, the settlements on the eastern side of the Horsham district will now be part of an even more sprawling central West Sussex constituency stretching for some 40 miles from the borders of Surrey in the north-west, almost to the fringes of the city of Brighton & Hove in the south-east.
Submissions organised by the member for Arundel South Downs have referred to the impracticality of bus or train journeys between places such as Amberley and Shoreham although people living in such rural areas are unlikely to rely on very limited public transport. It is difficult to imagine the practicalities of travelling from Steyning to Loxwood for example or what these very distant communities have in common with each other. Under the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals the new Arundel South Downs will contain hundreds of towns and villages. It is difficult to see what many of them have in common and how a single Member of Parliament can be expected to deal with them all effectively let alone represent their competing priorities.
It is also rather insulting to suggest that people in Shoreham could not possibly understand the priorities and issues of people living in Downland villages, let alone a Member of Parliament be able to reflect them all satisfactorily. A major concern expressed in submissions from people in Pulborough or Storrington is ‘overdevelopment.’ Anyone familiar with Shoreham will know that the major concern in the town is ‘overdevelopment.’ As I pointed out in my original submission some 52% of the geographical area covered by Adur District Council, which is centred on Shoreham, is in the South Downs National Park. My constituents in Shoreham identify with Downland issues no less than those living in Pulborough or Storrington for example.
In its original consultation proposals the Boundary Commission set out the following priorities for the revised boundaries:
- Avoidance of splitting wards
- Constricting boundaries to follow a single local authority area where possible and at least reducing the number of different local authorities represented in each constituency.
- Minimising uplifting of as many constituents as possible from existing constituencies.
You will recall that the proposals I submitted fully respected these criteria and indeed made suggestions which improved on their implementation. One of the original proposals which was universally queried was to split the two Sompting wards off from Lancing and the rest of Adur and include them in the new Worthing constituency. This made no sense, and I am pleased that the whole of Adur is to be kept together.
The other issue elsewhere in West Sussex which provided practical problems was the splitting of the so-called ‘Manhood Peninsula.’ Again, the Boundary Commission has been sensitive to this, and the new proposals keep the relevant divisions within the Chichester constituency. However, the impact on the rest of the Chichester constituency is considerable and I have mentioned that it is a major proposal to remove most of Chichester District from the Chichester constituency and surely a more extensive re-evaluation of the proposals is now necessary given the knock-on effect across West Sussex.
As a result of the revised proposals the three criteria mentioned above seem to have been completely relegated. By my calculations Arundel South Downs will now comprise three local authority areas spread across a much wider geographical area. Chichester will be split between two local authority areas and Worthing also between two local authority areas. Under my submission and endorsed by the official Sussex Conservative submission both Worthing and Chichester would have included just Worthing and Chichester local authority wards.
Many people in Worthing, including those in my constituency, were strongly supportive of the ‘reunification’ of the town of Worthing, notwithstanding the need to exclude 1 ward because of the upper limit on numbers. Worthing is the largest town in Sussex and has a strong identity of its own. The original division with Adur still does not sit well and many people resent being identified as East Worthing and representing a smaller part of the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency of which some two thirds of constituents are in Adur. Worthing should be a constituency in its own right again as it was for many years and that is why the Boundary Commission’s original proposals were so welcome. Not unsurprisingly many people were not moved to write in to the original consultation in support of that proposal as they assumed that it would now happen. I would anticipate therefore that the Boundary Commission will now receive many more responses from aggrieved Worthing residents who are still hoping for a ‘reunified’ Worthing.
I am therefore enclosing alternative proposals for the Boundary Commission to consider which achieve the following:
- Reunifies Worthing as the largest town in Sussex
- Recreates the new Adur Valley constituency with a mix of coastal and south facing towns and villages from the Horsham district.
- Restores the single local authority principle championed by the original proposals so that Chichester, Worthing, Bognor Regis, Mid-Sussex, Crawley and Horsham would all contain wards within those respective local authority areas. Only Shoreham and Arundel South Downs inevitably cover more than one local authority area.
- Restores most of Chichester within the Chichester constituency and reduces the movement of more residents across constituency boundaries.
- The Arundel South Downs constituency remains a rural one.
- Reduces split wards.
Revised proposals from Boundary Commission
Arundel South Downs – 3 Arun wards, 8 Chichester wards, 6 Horsham wards. 2 split wards
Disadvantages = Sprawling rural constituency now 40 miles wide from Surrey border virtually to City of Brighton & Hove.
= Even more unwieldy constituency than that originally created in 1996 due to need for additional constituency with no natural centre and even worse transport links
= Introduces new split wards
= Chops Chichester in half which was never considered in original proposal with massive shift of population from outside existing boundaries
Bognor Regis & Littlehampton – 16 Arun wards. 1 split ward.
Advantages = Reunites Manhood Peninsula
Disadvantages = Loses Pagham and Bersted ‘suburbs’ of Bognor Regis to Chichester with no obvious connections.
Chichester - 14 Chichester wards, 2 Arun wards. 1 split ward
Advantages = Reunites Manhood Peninsula
Disadvantages = Chichester district now split across constituencies with split ward too.
= Loss of more than half of land area of Chichester district, most of which now falls outside of Chichester District Authority area.
= Addition of 2 Arun wards from Bognor with no links to Chichester
East Worthing & Shoreham – 14 Adur wards. 4 Worthing wards
Advantages = Sompting wards now reunited with Adur
Disadvantages = Link with Adur Valley communities and South Downs National Park lost
= Worthing town remains split
Worthing West - 9 Worthing wards, 3 Arun wards. No split wards
Advantages = Adur wards reunited
Disadvantages = Town of Worthing no longer reunited and new constituency split across 1 district and 1 borough local authorities
= Findon village added but confused with Findon Valley in Worthing which remains in unchanged East Worthing & Shoreham constituency.
Our new revised proposals
- Reduced split wards
- Arundel South Downs constituency retained as ‘rural’ constituency by restoring Littlehampton to Bognor Regis but with less unwieldy sprawl. Pulborough and Storrington wards which expressed greatest number of submissions expressing resistance to becoming part of ‘urban’ dominated Shoreham retained within Arundel & South Downs.
- Much reduced impact on Chichester constituency which would have been completely transformed with only limited final stage consultation.
- Chichester constituency will all be within Chichester District; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency will all be within Arun District; Worthing constituency will all be within Worthing Borough. Shoreham will be split between three local council areas but two district authorities and just 1 borough ward given Worthing is oversize to retain Offington. Arundel & South Downs remains split between three district authority areas but a more equal spread.
- More level split of constituency numbers and within range (dependant on Goodwood split)
- No impact on Crawley, Mid Sussex, Horsham and new East Grinstead & Uckfield constituencies in rest of West Sussex.
Tim's original Boundary Commission submission, July 2021
I am making the following submission in response to the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals under its review of English parliamentary constituencies.
Firstly I understand the need for change to constituency boundaries and for increased representation for West Sussex given the growth in population and that this will involve wider than usual changes given that several constituencies are well beyond the average size for electors and now well beyond the numerical parameters set by this review. In the case of West Sussex this is unfortunately likely to involve crossing the county boundary with East Sussex and inevitably involve a substantial upheaval to the Arundel South Downs constituency which was rather ‘unwieldy’ when it was first created ahead of the 1997 General Election, involving vast swathes of unconnected parts of West Sussex crossing no fewer than 4 local authority areas.
I deduce from your initial proposals that you are keen to adhere to the following principles in particular and that any counterproposals should give close regard to this. I believe that my counter proposal set out below not only respects those principles but also implements them more cleanly.
- Avoidance of splitting wards
- Constricting boundaries to follow a single local authority area where possible and at least reducing the number of different local authorities represented in each constituency.
- Minimising uplifting of as many constituents as possible from existing constituencies.
On the basis that the Commission is attempting to create a new Worthing only seat to the west of the current East Worthing and Shoreham constituency; that it would be undesirable to cross the county boundary east into the City of Brighton & Hove which is a very different community to Adur; and that the sea lies to the south, then obviously the only way to expand the remainder of the Shoreham constituency is northward on the basis that Adur and Worthing will be split. Many of the towns in the Horsham district wards that are proposed to join Shoreham are much nearer the coast than Horsham and communities such as Steyning and Henfield naturally look towards Shoreham rather than towards Horsham. This is also a matter for future local authority boundary reviews but not to pursue here.
On the basis of the Commission’s initial proposals the new Crawley, Mid Sussex, Horsham and Chichester constituency would all contain wards only from Crawley, Mid Sussex, Horsham and Chichester local authority areas. It seems odd therefore that you are proposing to split off the two Sompting wards from Adur to go into the new Worthing seat and lose two Worthing Borough wards, Salvington and Offington. Surely it makes sense to keep Adur intact as Sompting identifies much more closely with Adur than Worthing. The main secondary school in Sompting is literally on the boundary road between Sompting and Lancing (it used to be called Boundstone) and draws most of its pupils from the larger Lancing. It therefore makes no sense to split these closely intertwined Adur communities and I suggest Cokeham and Peverel wards remain with Adur in the new Shoreham constituency.
As a consequence the Worthing seat could take back one of the two wards allocated to the new Arundel and Littlehampton seat and it would be an all Worthing constituency though one ward would have to remain outside as it would make the constituency too big. I would suggest that Salvington is retained by the Worthing constituency as it is part of Worthing West now and more central to the town of Worthing.
This will then require the new Shoreham constituency to lose one of the proposed additional Horsham wards to reduce numbers to within quota. I would therefore suggest moving Storrington back to Arundel & Littlehampton as it is currently part of the Arundel South Downs constituency and probably more linked to Arundel itself. That would leave Shoreham and Arundel and Littlehampton within your parameters and the new Shoreham Seat would be approximately two thirds Adur and one third new Horsham wards, i.e. across two local authority areas.
Whilst this solution makes Worthing ‘neater’ and reunites Adur, I realise it still means the new Arundel and Littlehampton constituency would range across 4 local authority areas, in the same way that Arundel South Downs does now. It would include Arun wards, Horsham wards, and an ‘orphan ward’ each from Chichester District and Worthing Borough. If this is a problem, I suggest a further swap between the new Shoreham and new Arundel Littlehampton constituencies. Shoreham would lose Pulborough (it cannot lose the West Chiltington ward because it would cut Pulborough off from the rest of the Shoreham acquired wards) and Shoreham would retain the Worthing ward of Offington which is part of the East Worthing & Shoreham constituency now.
Again, the numbers work here and then both Shoreham and Arundel & Littlehampton would cover three local authority areas although just one Worthing Borough ward for the former and one Chichester District ward for the latter. The resulting constituency numbers if the Offington/Pulborough switch goes ahead are all within range as follows:
Shoreham 76,785 electors
Worthing 76,835 electors
Arundel/Littlehampton 75,638 electors
There is also the question of whether Shoreham remains the most appropriate name for the new constituency which will now extend well beyond the coastal town. I appreciate however it is an old constituency name and historical connections were used to keep it within the renamed East Worthing & Shoreham constituency back in 1996. Shoreham remains one of the largest settlements in the new constituency with just over 20,000 residents. The trouble is that the next largest settlement in the constituency is Steyning with a population of 5800, Henfield with 5000 and all the others are below 5000. One possibility could be to rename the new constituency Adur Valley as the River Adur runs down from north of Henfield down to the sea at Shoreham. Another alternative would be Shoreham South Downs as it will now contain a much larger part of the South Downs National Park.
In summary, my full proposals would have the following advantages:
- The changes can be made with switches between Shoreham, Worthing and Arundel & Littlehampton and do not impact on any of the proposals for the other West Sussex constituencies.
- There would be no split wards
- Worthing would now consist only of Worthing wards making five of the County’s constituencies single local authority areas only
- Fewer constituents would be transferred between these three constituencies than proposed by the Commission
- Sompting would be reunited with Lancing and the rest of Adur with the whole of the local authority falling within the Shoreham constituency.
