The Commission has concluded that there should be no changes to constituency boundaries of the GLA before the next authority elections in 2016.
See the Commission's press release here.
This report presents the results of a survey conducted by 2020research on behalf to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). The survey was conducted to discover the local impact and perception of new electoral arrangements in 8 local authorities in England.
The authorities were:
These authorities had been reviewed by the LGBCE and in its latter days the Boundary Committee for England. The first whole-council elections based on newly established wards were held on 5 May 2011.
Our predecessor, the Boundary Committee for England, completed the last country-wide programme of electoral reviews in 2003. Following this, the Electoral Commission (the Boundary Committee's parent body) conducted an evaluation of the programme.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled district councils in two-tier areas and unitary authorities to create or alter parish boundaries by Community Governance Reviews (CGRs).
One consequence of a CGR may be that the boundaries of principal authority wards or electoral divisions no longer align with parish boundaries. In such circumstances, a principal council may ask the Commission to make “related alterations” to ward and electoral division boundaries in order to bring them into alignment with new or changed parish boundaries. The Commission must consider such requests and may; make the related alterations requested by the Council; or decide not to make any related alterations.
Making related alterations could affect the electoral balance of a local authority area: it could mean that a ward has a significantly greater, or smaller, number of electors than do other wards in the authority area and that the representation of that ward becomes disproportionate in relation to the rest.
The Commission’s policy for maintaining electoral balance is that if the electoral ratio in more than 30% of a principal council’s electoral areas varies by more than 10% from the average for the authority and/or the ratio in any one ward varies by more than 30% from the average, and those variances are not expected to decrease, a Further Electoral Review (FER) should be considered. If making related alterations results in a need or exacerbated need for a FER, this can bring into conflict the benefits of; electoral fairness, representation of community identity, longevity of electoral boundaries, and coterminosity.
The Commission has set out its policy by which it seeks to avoid making related alterations which would lead to short-lived boundaries of wards and/or electoral divisions.