Mr Andrew Travers

Chief Executive of Barnet Borough Council and Acting Returning Officer for Hendon
Barnet Borough Council
North London Business Park (NLBP)
Oakleigh Road South
London
N11 1NP
andrew.travers@barnet.gov.uk
Copied to Mayor Hugh Rayner, Returning Officer for Hendon
(mayor@barnet.gov.uk)
By email and post
27 March 2015
Dear Mr Travers,
Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places for Hendon Polling District
HOC / HOF (Hale Ward)
I am writing to you in your capacity as both Chief Executive of Barnet Borough
Council and Acting Returning Officer (ARO) for the Hendon parliamentary
constituency.
On 13 February 2015 we received a representation from more than 30 electors
under section 18D of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983) in
relation to Barnet Borough Councils recent review of polling districts and polling
places in Hendon. The representation was based on the grounds that the Councils
review did not meet the reasonable requirements of electors living south of the
former railway line in the HOC polling district.
I set out below the Electoral Commissions decision in respect of that representation.
Summary of decision
We have found that the review was not conducted in such a way as to meet electors
reasonable requirements. We therefore direct Barnet Council under section

18D(4)(a) RPA 1983 to create a new polling place of Annunciation School and that
this polling place should serve voters to the south of the former railway line, as
proposed by the ARO.
We further direct that this change is made in time for the UK parliamentary election
on 7 May 2015. We recommend that steps are taken to minimise voter confusion.
We also recommend that the polling district is split as recommended by the ARO.
Relevant legislation and guidance
In England the council of every district or London borough must divide its area into
polling districts for the purpose of parliamentary elections for so much of any
constituency as is situated in its area (section 18A(1) and (2) RPA 1983).
In addition, such councils must designate the polling places for the polling districts in
its area (section 18B(3)(a) RPA 1983). Except in certain circumstances, there must
be a polling place for each polling district (section 18B(1), (2) and (4)(d) RPA 1983).
Such councils must also keep their polling districts and polling places under review
(sections 18A(2)(b) and 18(3)(b) RPA 1983). A review must have been carried out
and completed between 1 October 2013 and 31 January 2015 (section 18C(2) and
(3) RPA 1983). A further review must be carried out during the period of 16 months
beginning with 1 October of every fifth year after that, although a review can also be
carried out at any other times (section 18C(2) and (3) RPA 1983).
The statutory rules that apply to such reviews and the procedure that must be
followed are set out in Appendix 1.
We have published guidance to assist councils in Great Britain with reviews:

Guidance on the review of polling districts and polling places (DOC)

Checklist: review of polling districts and polling places (XLS)

Following the completion of the review, representations can be made to the Electoral
Commission on the grounds that the review was not conducted so as to:

meet the reasonable requirements of electors (or any body of electors) in the
constituency, and / or

take sufficient account of disabled access to polling stations (section 18D(2)

RPA 1983).

Only certain categories of persons and bodies may made representations to us. One
such category is not less than 30 electors in the constituency (section 18D(1)(b) RPA
1983).
The returning officer for the constituency may make observations on any such
representations (section 18D(3) RPA 1983).
We must consider such representations and observations and may, if we think fit:
a) direct the relevant authority to make any alterations to the polling places
designated by the review which the Commission think necessary in the
circumstances;
b) if the authority fails to make the alterations before the end of the period of two
months starting on the day the direction is given, make the alterations
ourselves.
Barnet Borough Councils review of polling districts and polling places
The parliamentary polling places and polling districts in Barnet were reviewed
between 18 July 2014 and 11 November 2014. The representation that we have
received under section 18D RPA 1983 in this case relates to polling district HOC,
which is in the Hendon parliamentary constituency.
A consultation ran between 21July and 5 September 2014. During this period
electors were invited to make representations on the existing polling districts and
polling places in Barnet and suggest alternative locations to existing polling places.
The Labour Group responded to this consultation on 4 September. They stated that
the size of the HOC polling district means that some residents are a significant
distance from the polling station, risking potential disenfranchisement of the
community at the southern end of the PD in particular. In addition an elector replied
on 24 September to express significant concern with the HOC polling district. The
elector stated:
HOC District is divided almost completely by the land of the former Railway
from Mill Hill East to Edgware. There is only one accessible crossing point,

Deans Lane, to the west of the District, which has to be used by the 2000
electors living south of this barrier, to get to Hale Drive Polling Station.
Those electors living to the east, have a walk of up to 1.7 miles each way (3.4
miles return), and Parking is also very limited in the vicinity of the Polling
Station, especially due to a CPZ to the east. Many complaints were received
from electors about this situation, especially from elderly residents and those
taking children with them to the Polling Station.
It would be much more reasonable for a Polling Station to be made available
south of the Railway land, possibly in Annunciation Catholic School, or in a
temporary caravan (as done at The Harvester for adjacent HOD District). This
problem causes a lower poll in this part of HOC, with only an average take-up
of Postal Votes.
The AROs representations were received by the Council on 20 October 2014. They
were published following the Councils decision on 11 November 2014. The ARO
noted in Appendix C of his report to the Council, in respect of polling district HOC,
that:
This polling place is at Deansbrook School is located centrally within its
polling district and is a well-known local school. There is however a natural
barrier across part of the polling district due to parkland and a nature reserve,
so some electors have a longer route than is initially apparent if walking to
and from their station.
There are good transport links and some parking is available on nearby roads
(although there are CPZs1). Accessibility at the location is good, although the
hall that is used for polling is a tight fit for three polling stations and the
number of electors within the district is too many to reduce it to just two
stations.
Following the suggestion of an elector, a review was made of the
Annunciation Catholic School, The Meads, Edgware, HA8 9HQ.
This location was assessed as being a suitable polling location, with good
transport links, parking and facilities. It is therefore considered that it would
beneficial to a substantial number of electors residing in the south and south1

Controlled parking zone.

east of the polling district, if the polling district was split into two (approx. from
Deans Lane, following the line of the centre of the nature reserve to Bunns
Lane) and that this location be used as an additional polling place.
The ARO therefore proposed the permanent split of polling district and place new
polling place at Annunciation Catholic School. Both polling places offer good facilities
and the additional polling place will benefit a substantial number of electors.
A map of polling district HOC, with the proposed changes, is shown below (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of polling district HOC showing the proposed split of the district into two
districts: HOC above (north of) the red dashed line and HOF below (south of) the red dashed
line. Deansbrook School is shown with a blue dot, just above the red dashed line.
Annunciation School is circled, just below the red dashed line. (From AROs Report to
General Functions Committee 11 November 2014, Appendix D).

The ARO added that:

This proposal would improve the polling place accessibility for a significant
proportion of electors in HOC. In addition the facilities at Deansbrook School
would be better for those electors that remain in HOC as the polling place
would need to hold only two polling stations instead of three.
All electors within the new HOF polling district will have improved accessibility
to their polling place (AROs Report to General Functions Committee 11
November 2014, Appendix D).
The Council took a decision on the review of polling district HOC and the
Deansbrook School polling place on 11 November 2014. The minutes of the relevant
Council committee show that that a Council member proposed that polling district
HOC should be retained with its current borders and that the new polling district HOF
should not be created with a polling place at Annunciation School. The only reason
given was that where possible voting arrangements should not be changed as this
was liable to cause confusion to electors. On being put to the vote, the Committee
agreed that the existing polling district and place should be retained (so the district
was not split into two and there was to be no polling place at Annunciation School).
The AROs proposals were then published. The AROs report states that
representations will be awaited on the arrangements provided by the Councils
decision. Should any new representations be made that contain suggestions that are
considered to improve the polling arrangements over those decided, these will be
brought before the committee. We have been informed by the Council that the only
representations received were from the Labour Group and the elector on 5
September and 24 September respectively; no further representations were received
after 11 November and there was no further discussion of the review by the relevant
Council committee2.
Representation from more than 30 electors
On 13 February 2015 we received a representation from more than 30 electors. The
representation was submitted to us on their behalf by Councillor Kitty Lyons. In
summary, the representation stated that the review of polling district HOC and its
polling place at Deansbrook School did not meet the reasonable requirements of the
approximately 2,000 electors in what would have been the new polling district HOF,
2

However, the matter was raised again by Councillor Lyons at the full Council meeting on 20 January 2015.
Councillor Lyons asked why the Leader of the Council voted against the AROs proposal and whether he would
now endorse the proposal. The Leader answered no.

namely those electors in the HOC polling district that reside south of the disused,
fenced-off railway line (as shown in Figure 1). In particular, the representation stated
that electors south of the railway line have a considerable distance to travel in order
to vote at Deansbrook School; many must walk over 30 minutes. This is because the
railway line is still a barrier as there are limited crossings and it is fenced off. The
representation adds that the area south of the railway line is the least well off part of
the ward and contains a lot of elderly people and families with small children who do
not have private transport. It is argued that the Council committee voted against the
AROs proposal for no obvious reasonagainst the wishes of all the local people.
We wrote to the ARO for Hendon and Chief Executive of Barnet Council (copied to
the Returning Officer for Hendon) to ask for his observations on the above
representation from more than 30 electors. The ARO and Chief Executive stated that
he remained of the view that his proposal to split HOC and create a new polling
place at Annunciation School was appropriate but accepted that it was open to the
Council committee, as the decision-making body and also a body comprised of
elected members with familiarity of local geography, to reach a different decision. He
added that the reason for their decision was, as stated in the committee minutes,
based on the risk that the change would cause confusion to voters.
The Council has informed us that it calculated that 1,891 of the 5,113 electors in
HOC would have become part of the HOF polling district.
Decision
Our role under section 18D RPA 1983 is to consider whether Barnet Councils review
was conducted so as to meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the
constituency or any body of those electors3. A review includes everything from the
publication of the notice of review until the decision and its publication (along with
reasons and prescribed documents). In this case the representation from more than
30 electors is based on the argument that the decision, which was made by the
Council committee on 11 November 2014, did not meet the reasonable requirements
of the electors that reside south of the former railway line because of the distance
they must travel and the time that journey takes in order to vote at Deansbrook
School.

There is an additional ground that we must consider relating to the accessibility to disabled persons of polling
stations within a designated polling place but this is not raised in this appeal.

We have considered the information provided in the representation from over 30

electors, the information provided by the ARO (including the AROs report and
proposals) and the findings of a site visit carried out by a member of Commission
staff on 16 March 2015.
We have found that polling district HOC is to a large extent divided by a barrier
created by a former railway line that is now fenced off. The only means of crossing
the former railway line within the polling district are by using Deans Lane, at the
western edge of the polling district, or Bunns Lane, at the eastern edge of the polling
district. This increases the distance that must be travelled in order to vote at the
polling districts polling place at Deansbrook School for many of the voters that live
south of the former railway line. If HOC was divided into two as proposed by the
ARO, with voters in the new HOF polling district voting at Annunciation School,
journey distances and times for the voters living on many of the roads south of the
former railway line would be significantly reduced. The distance a voter at the
western end of Woodcroft Avenue, for example, would need to travel in order to vote
would be reduced by approximately a half and by a greater amount on roads such as
The Meads and nearby roads. These arrangements would have been much more
convenient for many of the electors in the polling district that reside south of the
former railway line.
We note that the sole reason provided by the Council for not adopting the AROs
proposal was that where possible voting arrangements should not be changed as
this was liable to cause confusion to electors. We accept that any change to polling
districts and places has the potential to cause confusion to electors but this risk
needs to be balanced against the benefit to electors of more convenient polling
arrangements. Any risk of confusion can also be managed. Any change is required
by law to be publicised locally (regulation 4 of the Review of Polling Districts and
Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006). The change could have
been published at the Town Hall, on the Councils website and in the local press.
Electors poll cards would have clearly stated the place at which electors would be
required to vote and the poll staff at the polling stations in both Deansbrook School
and Annunciation School could also have been briefed about the change and asked
to direct voters that were trying to vote at the wrong school to vote at the other
school. Given the steps that could have been taken to minimise voter confusion, we
do not consider this to be a strong argument in favour of the retention of the existing
HOC polling district, with a polling place at Deansbrook School.
We have considered whether the decision not to divide HOC and to require all
electors in HOC to vote at Deansbrook School met the reasonable requirements of

the electors that reside south of the former railway line. The reasonable
requirements of electors in a constituency depend on a number of factors such as
local topography and demographics. In general, the Commission considers that
these requirements are likely to be met if a council designates polling places that are
reasonably convenient and accessible to all voters in a polling district, including
those who are elderly or disabled. Our guidance lists a number of factors that should
be taken into account when reviewing polling districts and polling places. In respect
of polling districts this includes whether there are there any obstacles to voters
crossing the current polling district and reaching the polling place e.g., steep hills,
major roads, railway lines, rivers? For determining the location of polling places our
guidance states Is it reasonably accessible within the polling district? Does it avoid
barriers for the voter such as steep hills, major roads, rivers, etc.? Are there any
convenient transport links? Our view is that the reasonable requirements of electors
will be met if all factors are taken into account and that a proper balance is struck
between convenience to electors and other factors, such as the availability of
suitable buildings for polling.
In conducting a review we would expect a council to take into account all factors and
strike such a balance. In this case, we find that undue weight was given to the risk of
voter confusion, which could have been reduced through publicising the new polling
arrangements, and that insufficient weight was given to the convenience of electors.
As noted above, the obstacle created by the former railway line increases the
journey time for many of the voters south of the line to vote at Deansbrook School. In
this case there is an alternative polling place at Annunciation School that was
suitable for polling and this was recommended by the ARO. This alternative would
have made voting for many of the electors that live south of the railway line much
more convenient because of the reduced distance that they would need to travel.
Therefore, our decision is that the review of the HOC polling district and the polling
place of Deansbrook School was not conducted so as to meet such electors
reasonable requirements.
Direction
Having found that the review was not conducted in such a way as to meet electors
reasonable requirements, we therefore direct Barnet Council under section 18D(4)(a)
RPA 1983 to create a new polling place of Annunciation School and that this polling
place should serve voters to the south of the former railway line, as proposed by the
ARO.

We further direct that this change is made in time for the UK parliamentary election
on 7 May 2015. In order to minimise the risk of voter confusion close to an election,
we recommend that this change is published at Hendon Town Hall and on your
website and that the relevant polling place is clearly shown on electors poll cards.
Also, poll staff at both Deansbrook School and Annunciation School should be
instructed to direct voters to the correct polling place if they attempt to vote at the
incorrect place.
We have no power to direct the Council to amend its polling districts. However, we
recommend that HOC is split into two polling districts as proposed by the ARO, with
voters in what will remain known as HOC (to the north of the railway line) voting at
Deansbrook School and voters in the new HOF polling district (to the south of the
railway line) voting at Annunciation School. This change would better align the
polling district boundaries with the natural boundary created by the former railway
line and would mean that neither district was largely divided into two by the railway
line.
Yours sincerely,

Andrew Scallan
Director of Electoral Administration
Electoral Commission

Appendix 1: Rules and procedure governing reviews of polling districts and

polling places
In England the council of every district or London borough must designate polling
districts and polling places, and keep them under review, under sections 18A and
18B of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA 1983).
Polling districts (section 18A)
In respect of polling districts, the authority must seek to ensure that all electors in a
constituency in its area have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable
in the circumstances.
Polling places (section 18B)
A polling place must be designated for each polling district in a constituency, unless
the size or other circumstances of a polling district are such that the situation of the
polling stations does not materially affect the convenience of the electors or any
body of them.
The following rules apply
a) the authority must seek to ensure that all electors in a constituency in its area
have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the
circumstances;
b) the authority must seek to ensure that so far as is reasonable and practicable
every polling place for which it is responsible is accessible to electors who are
disabled;
c) the authority must have regard to the accessibility to disabled persons of
potential polling stations in any place which it is considering designating as a
polling place or the designation of which as a polling place it is reviewing;
d) the polling place for a polling district must be an area in the district, unless
special circumstances make it desirable to designate an area wholly or partly
outside the district;

e) the polling place for a polling district must be small enough to indicate to
electors in different parts of the district how they will be able to reach the
polling station.
Local authorities were required to review their polling districts and polling places
between 1 October 2013 and 31 January 2015.
The following procedure must be followed (Schedule A1 RPA 1983 and Review of
Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006):

The authority must publish notice of the holding of a review.

The authority must consult the returning officer for every parliamentary
election held in a constituency which is wholly or partly in its area.

Each returning officer must make representations to the authority. The

representations must include information as to the location of polling
stations (existing or proposed) within polling places (existing or proposed).
The authority must, within 30 days of receipt, publish representations
made by a returning officer for the purposes of the review of polling
districts or polling places
a) by posting a copy of them at its office and in at least one
conspicuous place in their area; and
b) if the authority maintains a website, by placing a copy on the
authority's website.

The authority must seek representations from such persons as it thinks

have particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for
persons who have different forms of disability. Such persons must have an
opportunity to make representations and comment on the returning
officer's representations.

Any elector in a constituency situated in whole or in part in the authority's

area may make representations. Representations made by any person in
connection with a review of polling places may include proposals for
specified alternative polling places.

On completion of a review the authority must give reasons for its decisions
in the review and publish:
a) all correspondence sent to a returning officer in connection with the
review;
b) all correspondence sent to any person whom the authority thinks
has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities
for persons who have different forms of disability;
c) all representations made by any person in connection with the
review;
d) the minutes of any meeting held by the authority to consider any
revision to the designation of polling districts or polling places within
its area as a result of the review;
e) details of the designation of polling districts or polling places within
its area as a result of the review;
f) details of the places where the results of the review have been
published.