CRITICS of plans to radically redraw the boundaries of MPs' constituencies today pleaded: don't carve up our city.

There are fears proposed changed put forward by the Boundary Commission will de-stabilise the political landscape of Brighton and Hove.

Albion hero Dick Knight, is one of many who has responded to the commission's consultation, urging them to rethink their "ill-conceived" plan.

Under the proposal, the existing Hove constituency boundaries would be redrawn to include much of Brighton city centre and the seafront including The Royal Pavilion, The Lanes and the area around Brighton Station.

Meanwhile Hove Park ward would move from the Hove constituency into the newly created Brighton North, which would replace Caroline Lucas's Brighton Pavilion constituency.

Woodingdean would move away from the other Deans in the Kemptown constituency to Brighton North while Conservative Simon Kirby's Kemptown would gain Newhaven and Seaford.

Mr Knight, said: "By artificially merging together inland areas of Brighton and Hove the new boundaries fail to recognise and understand the unique fabric of the city – two towns united as a city, but happily divided by their own distinct identities."

He said: "I urge you to reconsider these ill-conceived boundary changes," which he said were "almost certain to de-stabilise the future political landscape of the city".

Political opponents have suggested the intervention from Mr Knight, who backed Ms Lucas at the last election, and a new Green Party petition not to move Hove Park are as much about protecting Caroline Lucas's future seat in Parliament than any other historical concerns.

Proposals to redraw the country's parliamentary seats to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and even out voters in each constituency to around 75,000, are currently subject to a three month consultation.

The existing Hove constituency of Peter Kyle would be renamed Brighton Central and Hove, its boundary moving eastwards to the Green strongholds of Regency and St Peter's and North Laine wards.

The constituency would run from the West Sussex border to the Old Steine and border Brighton North along Old Shoreham Road and then the railway line from Goldstone Retail Park.

The Brighton Pavilion would become Brighton North, becoming cut off from the seafront and gaining the Labour wards of East Brighton and Moulsecoomb and Bevendean as well as Tory voting Woodingdean.

The Brighton Kemptown constituency would extend eastwards to include Newhaven and Seaford - a move that former Labour MP David Lepper has described as blatant "Gerrymandering" to secure it as a Conservative safe seat.

Brighton East and Newhaven would run eastwards from the Brighton Palace Pier all the way to Cuckmere Haven meeting Brighton North along Albion Hill before snaking its way around Brighton Racecourse.

Brighton and Hove Conservatives want to see all three constituency connections to the sea retained and Hove Park kept in Hove.

The Boundary Commission said that historic ties would be considered as part of the consultation, although constituency size had greater weighting, and indicated that the opportunity for changes remained high.

Mr Lepper, who was succeeded as Brighton Pavilion MP by Caroline Lucas in 2010, said: "I have no doubt that Caroline Lucas has some difficult choices to make if she wants to pursue her political career further.”

The consultation runs until December 5 and can be viewed at bce2018.org.uk

A CASE OF DIVIDE AND CONQUER?

DESPITE being united together under one council since 1997, Brighton and Hove retain two separate identities.

Though just a line in the pavement, the well-to-dos of Hove, Actually and salt-of-the-earth Brightonians are different tribes.

Critics of the Boundary Commission’s proposal warn significant divisions will be lost and absurdities created with Hove Park no longer in Hove while Brighton landmarks such as The Lanes and The Royal Pavilion are.

Albion saviour Dick Knight is among those keen to avoid that and he has been joined by Brighton and Hove Conservatives.

Conservative councillor Lee Wares said: “Brighton and Hove are two distinct towns that have their own cultures, backgrounds and ways of life and that is something we wish to preserve.”

Under their proposals, seafront Regency ward would remain in Brighton Pavilion – something they and Mr Knight believe is critical in our coastal city.

Cllr Wares said: “We don’t feel that any constituency in Brighton should be inland, we feel that all constituencies should touch the coast.”

While supportive of his party’s own proposals, fellow Conservative councillor Steve Bell said that which ward wound up where was of a secondary importance to the need for greater fairness in the electoral process.

He said: “If you look at Woodingdean it has traditionally always been connected to all the Deans and now we are being moved out.

“But we are not moaning.

“Predominately this has to be about fairness, the value of one person’s vote is the same as another person’s vote.

“A lot of residents don’t know what constituency they are in, it’s only politicos that make mountains out of it.”

Whatever your political persuasion many of the boundary changes do appear odd.

It certainly doesn’t look like the proposal was drawn up by anyone who lives in the area.

Surely, for instance, each constituency should be connected to the seafront. No matter where you live in Brighton and Hove, the seafront is vital.

It brings in millions to the city in tourism and provides thousands of jobs.

For Brighton North to be a landlocked constituency seems wrong.

But not all political figures in the city feel that the new constituencies are illogical.

David Lepper served Brighton Pavilion as Labour MP for 13 years and believes a constituency serving the northern suburbs makes sense.

He said: “People living in the north of the city from Hove Park and Woodingdean in many ways have considerably more in common than people living in the centre.

“I think there has been a sense that these suburbs have been forgotten about in recent years with too much focus on the city centre.”

His concerns lie elsewhere, not least in what he sees as an unnatural extension of Simon Kirby’s Brighton Kemptown constituency.

He said: “I see no sense at all in these Brighton East and Newhaven constituency, I think that is blatant gerrymandering to ensure the Tories keep that seat for ever.”

Boundary changes are inevitably political even when run by an independent body.

Some 200 Labour seats could be affected nationally and 30 wiped out.

It’s the political fallout in Brighton Pavilion that talk in this city has focused on.

Some have argued the loss of Green wards will make retaining the new Brighton North a tough task for Caroline Lucas with suggestions she may consider moving to Central Brighton and Hove for a clash of the titans with Peter Kyle.

Political opponents have suggested Mr Knight’s intervention is motivated by his support for Ms Lucas who he backed at the last election.

A Green Party petition calling on Hove Park not to be moved out of Hove has also been eyed with scepticism.

Hove Park councillor Vanessa Brown, who wants to see her ward stay in Hove, said: “I’m sure the Green interest is an attempt to secure Pavilion for Caroline, they have never shown much interest in Hove Park before.”

The removal of Hove Park, home to two Conservative councillors, could also boost Mr Kyle’s ambitions to hold on to Hove – a suggestion the MP dismisses.

He said: “I love Hove Park, it’s where I got one of my biggest spikes, and I would be very sad to see it go.”

Trying to create 600 even constituencies across the country is Jenga on a huge scale and that’s why the Labour MP does not believe the proposals will change much through the consultation.

He said: “I would think that one or two wards might be shuffled around but I think they are more than likely to stay the same.”

But the Boundary Commission is keen to point out that residents could play an important role in redrawing boundary lines.

A spokeswoman said the public were experts on local ties, identifying proposals that look good on paper but not in practice.

Historical ties will be considered for new boundaries but voter numbers hold a greater weighting because they are laid down in law.

A previous boundary rejig, pulled in 2013, saw two-thirds of the initial proposals overhauled.

Whatever is decided, residents will have to wait until next year to find out what happens. Submissions are due to be published in the spring ahead of though the final report won't be submitted to government until September 2018 following two further periods of consultation.

THESE ILL-CONCEIVED CHANGES WILL PUT OUR SOCIAL FABRIC AT RISK

Opinion by Dick Knight

AS an Honorary Freeman of the City of Brighton and Hove, and a lifelong resident, I feel qualified to comment on the proposed constituency boundary changes which I believe will seriously impact on the character of the city.

The proposed changes, by artificially merging together inland areas of Brighton and Hove – the new boundaries being mainly north/south rather than the traditional east/west – fail to recognise and understand the unique fabric of the city – two towns united as a city but happily divided by their own distinct identities.

Nowhere is the different character of the towns more visually, emotively and economically expressed than on their respective seafronts – yet both are vital elements in the cultural make-up of each town.

The strategic importance of these areas is fully acknowledged by the city council, with the recent publication of the Brighton and Hove Seafront Investment Plan 2016-21, believed to be the biggest seafront investment programme anywhere in the country.

Yet the proposed new constituency, Brighton North, is denied any coastal benefits and access at all.

Plus it has no major railway station.

This would force residential parts of Hove and Brighton into a strange political alliance of majority opposing views – almost certain to destabilise the future political landscape of the city.

Other anomalies of the new boundaries include: putting high profile areas of Brighton – The Lanes, Churchill Square, Queen’s Road, North Laine – into a largely Hove/Portslade geographical constituency (Brighton Central and Hove), and putting Hove Park into Brighton North, so that much-loved Hove Park is no longer in Hove.

I urge you to reconsider these ill-conceived boundary changes, affecting most of Brighton and all of Hove and to retain the existing constituencies which naturally reflect the different (constituent) parts of the Brighton and Hove area.

The small shortfalls in current elector numbers in these constituencies against the new legal requirement (minimum 71,031 electors) can be overcome by a) moving the existing Hove constituency boundary marginally eastwards to add the extra 2,500 electors required, b) moving the Brighton Pavilion boundary marginally eastwards to create approx. 3,500 additional electors, and c) retaining the proposal to extend Brighton Kemptown eastwards into a new Brighton East and Newhaven constituency.

I am happy for my comments to be put into the public domain, because I believe they reflect the views of many residents of Brighton and Hove who seriously question the logic and common sense of the proposed electoral boundary changes.

Keep the existing constituencies largely as they are – and don’t risk undermining the fundamental social fabric of our great city.