North West -
Transcript of North West -
North West
Revised proposals
Contents
Revised proposals summary 2
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England 4
2 Background to the review 5
3 Revised proposals for the North West 8
4 How to have your say 82
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates 84
1 WestNorth
Revised proposals summary
Who we are and what we do
The BoundaryCommissionforEnglandisanindependent andimpartialnon‑departmentalpublic bodywhichisresponsibleforreviewingParliamentary constituencyboundariesinEngland
2013 Review
We havethetaskofperiodicallyreviewingthe boundariesofalltheParliamentaryconstituencies inEnglandWearecurrentlyconducting areviewonthebasisofnewruleslaid downbyParliamentTheserulesinvolvea significantreductioninthenumberofconstituencies inEngland(from533to502)resulting inthenumberofconstituenciesintheNorth Westreducingbysevento68Therulesalso requirethateveryconstituencyndashapartfrom twospecifiedexceptionsndashmusthaveanelectorate thatisnosmallerthan72810andno largerthan80473
Revised proposals
Following thepublicationofourinitialproposalsin September2011andtwoextensiveconsultation exerciseswehavenowpublishedour revisedproposalsInformationabouttheproposed constituenciesisnowavailableonour websiteorinhardcopyatalocalplaceofdeposit nearyou
What are the revised proposals for the North West
We haverevised45ofthe68constituencieswe proposedinSeptember2011Aftercarefulconsideration wehavedecidednottomakeany revisionstotheboundariesoftheremaining 23constituenciesInsomeinstanceshowever wehaverevisedourproposednamesfor theseconstituencies
Under ourrevisedproposals14constituenciesin theNorthWestwouldremainthesameasthey areundertheexistingarrangements
As itwasnotalwayspossibletoallocatewhole numbersofconstituenciestoindividualcounties ourinitialproposalsgroupedsomelocal authorityareasintosub‑regionsItwasalso necessarytoproposesomeconstituenciesthat crosscountyorunitaryauthorityboundaries IntheNorthWestitwasfurthernecessary toproposetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed oursub‑regions
While wehaveretainedthesamesub‑regionsas thebasisofourrevisedproposalsasshownin thetablebelowwehaverevisedthelocationand compositionofoneofthecross‑sub‑regionboundary constituencies
Following carefulconsiderationwehaveproduced arevisedproposalforacross‑county
Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under our revised proposals
eht larriWCheshire dna 15 13
eht )larriWMerseyside ssel( 11 10
Greater retsehcnaM 27 26
Lancashire 16 14
Cumbria 6 5
includesconstituencieswithareasinbothCheshireandLancashire
WestNorth 2
summaryproposalsRevised
boundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andLancashireOurrevisedproposal linkswardsfromthenorthofBoltonwith thosefromDarwenandthesurroundingarea Wehavenotrevisedourcross‑countyboundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andCheshirendashHazelGroveand Poynton
We havemadesubstantialrevisionstoourinitial proposalsforCumbriaManchesterMerseyside andeasternLancashireinorderto betterreflectexistingconstituencyarrangements andlocalgovernmentboundaries
We haverevisedourinitialproposalsforCheshire inordertoavoidtheinclusionof detachedwardsintheMerseyBanksconstituency andbetterreflectexistingconstituency arrangementselsewhereinthe sub‑region
After carefulconsiderationwehavenotrevised ourinitialproposalsfortheconstituencies inandaroundBlackpoolChester CongletonCreweMacclesfieldand Morecambe
How to have your say
We areconsultingonourrevisedproposalsforan eight‑weekperiodfrom16October2012to10 December2012Weencourageeveryonetouse thisfinalopportunitytocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciesndashthemorepublic viewswehearthemoreinformedourdecisions willbebeforewemakerecommendations totheGovernment
We askeveryonewishingtocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciestofirstlookat therevisedproposalsreportandaccompanying mapsbeforerespondingtous
You canfindmoredetailsofhowtorespondon ourwebsiteoryoucanwritetousdirectoremail northwestbcommenglandxgsigovukYou canalsofindmoredetailsabouttherestofthe reviewonourwebsite
3 WestNorth
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
11 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland isanindependentandimpartialnon‑departmental publicbodywhichisrequired byParliamenttoreviewParliamentaryconstituency boundariesinEnglandWe conductareviewofalltheconstituenciesin EnglandeveryfiveyearsOurroleistomake recommendationstoParliamentfornew constituencyboundaries
12 The ChairoftheCommissionistheSpeaker oftheHouseofCommonsbutbyconvention heorshedoesnotparticipatein theformulationoftheCommissionrsquosrecommendations norintheconductofthereview TheDeputyChairMrJusticeSalesandtwo furtherCommissionerstakedecisionsonrecommendations fornewconstituencyboundaries Theyareassistedintheirtaskby27 AssistantCommissionersthreeallocatedtoeach ofthenineregionsofEnglandFurtherinformation abouttheCommissionersandAssistant CommissionerscanbefoundinthelsquoAbout usrsquosectionofourwebsite1
13 Our websitealsocontainsalltheinformation neededtoviewandcommentonour revisedproposalsYoucanalsocontactus withanygeneralenquiriesbyemailinginformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk by calling02072761102orbywritingto
The SecretarytotheCommissionBoundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
1 At wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukabout‑us
WestNorth 4
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
Contents
Revised proposals summary 2
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England 4
2 Background to the review 5
3 Revised proposals for the North West 8
4 How to have your say 82
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates 84
1 WestNorth
Revised proposals summary
Who we are and what we do
The BoundaryCommissionforEnglandisanindependent andimpartialnon‑departmentalpublic bodywhichisresponsibleforreviewingParliamentary constituencyboundariesinEngland
2013 Review
We havethetaskofperiodicallyreviewingthe boundariesofalltheParliamentaryconstituencies inEnglandWearecurrentlyconducting areviewonthebasisofnewruleslaid downbyParliamentTheserulesinvolvea significantreductioninthenumberofconstituencies inEngland(from533to502)resulting inthenumberofconstituenciesintheNorth Westreducingbysevento68Therulesalso requirethateveryconstituencyndashapartfrom twospecifiedexceptionsndashmusthaveanelectorate thatisnosmallerthan72810andno largerthan80473
Revised proposals
Following thepublicationofourinitialproposalsin September2011andtwoextensiveconsultation exerciseswehavenowpublishedour revisedproposalsInformationabouttheproposed constituenciesisnowavailableonour websiteorinhardcopyatalocalplaceofdeposit nearyou
What are the revised proposals for the North West
We haverevised45ofthe68constituencieswe proposedinSeptember2011Aftercarefulconsideration wehavedecidednottomakeany revisionstotheboundariesoftheremaining 23constituenciesInsomeinstanceshowever wehaverevisedourproposednamesfor theseconstituencies
Under ourrevisedproposals14constituenciesin theNorthWestwouldremainthesameasthey areundertheexistingarrangements
As itwasnotalwayspossibletoallocatewhole numbersofconstituenciestoindividualcounties ourinitialproposalsgroupedsomelocal authorityareasintosub‑regionsItwasalso necessarytoproposesomeconstituenciesthat crosscountyorunitaryauthorityboundaries IntheNorthWestitwasfurthernecessary toproposetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed oursub‑regions
While wehaveretainedthesamesub‑regionsas thebasisofourrevisedproposalsasshownin thetablebelowwehaverevisedthelocationand compositionofoneofthecross‑sub‑regionboundary constituencies
Following carefulconsiderationwehaveproduced arevisedproposalforacross‑county
Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under our revised proposals
eht larriWCheshire dna 15 13
eht )larriWMerseyside ssel( 11 10
Greater retsehcnaM 27 26
Lancashire 16 14
Cumbria 6 5
includesconstituencieswithareasinbothCheshireandLancashire
WestNorth 2
summaryproposalsRevised
boundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andLancashireOurrevisedproposal linkswardsfromthenorthofBoltonwith thosefromDarwenandthesurroundingarea Wehavenotrevisedourcross‑countyboundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andCheshirendashHazelGroveand Poynton
We havemadesubstantialrevisionstoourinitial proposalsforCumbriaManchesterMerseyside andeasternLancashireinorderto betterreflectexistingconstituencyarrangements andlocalgovernmentboundaries
We haverevisedourinitialproposalsforCheshire inordertoavoidtheinclusionof detachedwardsintheMerseyBanksconstituency andbetterreflectexistingconstituency arrangementselsewhereinthe sub‑region
After carefulconsiderationwehavenotrevised ourinitialproposalsfortheconstituencies inandaroundBlackpoolChester CongletonCreweMacclesfieldand Morecambe
How to have your say
We areconsultingonourrevisedproposalsforan eight‑weekperiodfrom16October2012to10 December2012Weencourageeveryonetouse thisfinalopportunitytocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciesndashthemorepublic viewswehearthemoreinformedourdecisions willbebeforewemakerecommendations totheGovernment
We askeveryonewishingtocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciestofirstlookat therevisedproposalsreportandaccompanying mapsbeforerespondingtous
You canfindmoredetailsofhowtorespondon ourwebsiteoryoucanwritetousdirectoremail northwestbcommenglandxgsigovukYou canalsofindmoredetailsabouttherestofthe reviewonourwebsite
3 WestNorth
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
11 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland isanindependentandimpartialnon‑departmental publicbodywhichisrequired byParliamenttoreviewParliamentaryconstituency boundariesinEnglandWe conductareviewofalltheconstituenciesin EnglandeveryfiveyearsOurroleistomake recommendationstoParliamentfornew constituencyboundaries
12 The ChairoftheCommissionistheSpeaker oftheHouseofCommonsbutbyconvention heorshedoesnotparticipatein theformulationoftheCommissionrsquosrecommendations norintheconductofthereview TheDeputyChairMrJusticeSalesandtwo furtherCommissionerstakedecisionsonrecommendations fornewconstituencyboundaries Theyareassistedintheirtaskby27 AssistantCommissionersthreeallocatedtoeach ofthenineregionsofEnglandFurtherinformation abouttheCommissionersandAssistant CommissionerscanbefoundinthelsquoAbout usrsquosectionofourwebsite1
13 Our websitealsocontainsalltheinformation neededtoviewandcommentonour revisedproposalsYoucanalsocontactus withanygeneralenquiriesbyemailinginformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk by calling02072761102orbywritingto
The SecretarytotheCommissionBoundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
1 At wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukabout‑us
WestNorth 4
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
Revised proposals summary
Who we are and what we do
The BoundaryCommissionforEnglandisanindependent andimpartialnon‑departmentalpublic bodywhichisresponsibleforreviewingParliamentary constituencyboundariesinEngland
2013 Review
We havethetaskofperiodicallyreviewingthe boundariesofalltheParliamentaryconstituencies inEnglandWearecurrentlyconducting areviewonthebasisofnewruleslaid downbyParliamentTheserulesinvolvea significantreductioninthenumberofconstituencies inEngland(from533to502)resulting inthenumberofconstituenciesintheNorth Westreducingbysevento68Therulesalso requirethateveryconstituencyndashapartfrom twospecifiedexceptionsndashmusthaveanelectorate thatisnosmallerthan72810andno largerthan80473
Revised proposals
Following thepublicationofourinitialproposalsin September2011andtwoextensiveconsultation exerciseswehavenowpublishedour revisedproposalsInformationabouttheproposed constituenciesisnowavailableonour websiteorinhardcopyatalocalplaceofdeposit nearyou
What are the revised proposals for the North West
We haverevised45ofthe68constituencieswe proposedinSeptember2011Aftercarefulconsideration wehavedecidednottomakeany revisionstotheboundariesoftheremaining 23constituenciesInsomeinstanceshowever wehaverevisedourproposednamesfor theseconstituencies
Under ourrevisedproposals14constituenciesin theNorthWestwouldremainthesameasthey areundertheexistingarrangements
As itwasnotalwayspossibletoallocatewhole numbersofconstituenciestoindividualcounties ourinitialproposalsgroupedsomelocal authorityareasintosub‑regionsItwasalso necessarytoproposesomeconstituenciesthat crosscountyorunitaryauthorityboundaries IntheNorthWestitwasfurthernecessary toproposetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed oursub‑regions
While wehaveretainedthesamesub‑regionsas thebasisofourrevisedproposalsasshownin thetablebelowwehaverevisedthelocationand compositionofoneofthecross‑sub‑regionboundary constituencies
Following carefulconsiderationwehaveproduced arevisedproposalforacross‑county
Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under our revised proposals
eht larriWCheshire dna 15 13
eht )larriWMerseyside ssel( 11 10
Greater retsehcnaM 27 26
Lancashire 16 14
Cumbria 6 5
includesconstituencieswithareasinbothCheshireandLancashire
WestNorth 2
summaryproposalsRevised
boundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andLancashireOurrevisedproposal linkswardsfromthenorthofBoltonwith thosefromDarwenandthesurroundingarea Wehavenotrevisedourcross‑countyboundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andCheshirendashHazelGroveand Poynton
We havemadesubstantialrevisionstoourinitial proposalsforCumbriaManchesterMerseyside andeasternLancashireinorderto betterreflectexistingconstituencyarrangements andlocalgovernmentboundaries
We haverevisedourinitialproposalsforCheshire inordertoavoidtheinclusionof detachedwardsintheMerseyBanksconstituency andbetterreflectexistingconstituency arrangementselsewhereinthe sub‑region
After carefulconsiderationwehavenotrevised ourinitialproposalsfortheconstituencies inandaroundBlackpoolChester CongletonCreweMacclesfieldand Morecambe
How to have your say
We areconsultingonourrevisedproposalsforan eight‑weekperiodfrom16October2012to10 December2012Weencourageeveryonetouse thisfinalopportunitytocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciesndashthemorepublic viewswehearthemoreinformedourdecisions willbebeforewemakerecommendations totheGovernment
We askeveryonewishingtocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciestofirstlookat therevisedproposalsreportandaccompanying mapsbeforerespondingtous
You canfindmoredetailsofhowtorespondon ourwebsiteoryoucanwritetousdirectoremail northwestbcommenglandxgsigovukYou canalsofindmoredetailsabouttherestofthe reviewonourwebsite
3 WestNorth
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
11 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland isanindependentandimpartialnon‑departmental publicbodywhichisrequired byParliamenttoreviewParliamentaryconstituency boundariesinEnglandWe conductareviewofalltheconstituenciesin EnglandeveryfiveyearsOurroleistomake recommendationstoParliamentfornew constituencyboundaries
12 The ChairoftheCommissionistheSpeaker oftheHouseofCommonsbutbyconvention heorshedoesnotparticipatein theformulationoftheCommissionrsquosrecommendations norintheconductofthereview TheDeputyChairMrJusticeSalesandtwo furtherCommissionerstakedecisionsonrecommendations fornewconstituencyboundaries Theyareassistedintheirtaskby27 AssistantCommissionersthreeallocatedtoeach ofthenineregionsofEnglandFurtherinformation abouttheCommissionersandAssistant CommissionerscanbefoundinthelsquoAbout usrsquosectionofourwebsite1
13 Our websitealsocontainsalltheinformation neededtoviewandcommentonour revisedproposalsYoucanalsocontactus withanygeneralenquiriesbyemailinginformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk by calling02072761102orbywritingto
The SecretarytotheCommissionBoundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
1 At wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukabout‑us
WestNorth 4
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
summaryproposalsRevised
boundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andLancashireOurrevisedproposal linkswardsfromthenorthofBoltonwith thosefromDarwenandthesurroundingarea Wehavenotrevisedourcross‑countyboundary constituencybetweenGreaterManchester andCheshirendashHazelGroveand Poynton
We havemadesubstantialrevisionstoourinitial proposalsforCumbriaManchesterMerseyside andeasternLancashireinorderto betterreflectexistingconstituencyarrangements andlocalgovernmentboundaries
We haverevisedourinitialproposalsforCheshire inordertoavoidtheinclusionof detachedwardsintheMerseyBanksconstituency andbetterreflectexistingconstituency arrangementselsewhereinthe sub‑region
After carefulconsiderationwehavenotrevised ourinitialproposalsfortheconstituencies inandaroundBlackpoolChester CongletonCreweMacclesfieldand Morecambe
How to have your say
We areconsultingonourrevisedproposalsforan eight‑weekperiodfrom16October2012to10 December2012Weencourageeveryonetouse thisfinalopportunitytocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciesndashthemorepublic viewswehearthemoreinformedourdecisions willbebeforewemakerecommendations totheGovernment
We askeveryonewishingtocontributetothedesign ofthenewconstituenciestofirstlookat therevisedproposalsreportandaccompanying mapsbeforerespondingtous
You canfindmoredetailsofhowtorespondon ourwebsiteoryoucanwritetousdirectoremail northwestbcommenglandxgsigovukYou canalsofindmoredetailsabouttherestofthe reviewonourwebsite
3 WestNorth
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
11 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland isanindependentandimpartialnon‑departmental publicbodywhichisrequired byParliamenttoreviewParliamentaryconstituency boundariesinEnglandWe conductareviewofalltheconstituenciesin EnglandeveryfiveyearsOurroleistomake recommendationstoParliamentfornew constituencyboundaries
12 The ChairoftheCommissionistheSpeaker oftheHouseofCommonsbutbyconvention heorshedoesnotparticipatein theformulationoftheCommissionrsquosrecommendations norintheconductofthereview TheDeputyChairMrJusticeSalesandtwo furtherCommissionerstakedecisionsonrecommendations fornewconstituencyboundaries Theyareassistedintheirtaskby27 AssistantCommissionersthreeallocatedtoeach ofthenineregionsofEnglandFurtherinformation abouttheCommissionersandAssistant CommissionerscanbefoundinthelsquoAbout usrsquosectionofourwebsite1
13 Our websitealsocontainsalltheinformation neededtoviewandcommentonour revisedproposalsYoucanalsocontactus withanygeneralenquiriesbyemailinginformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk by calling02072761102orbywritingto
The SecretarytotheCommissionBoundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
1 At wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukabout‑us
WestNorth 4
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
11 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland isanindependentandimpartialnon‑departmental publicbodywhichisrequired byParliamenttoreviewParliamentaryconstituency boundariesinEnglandWe conductareviewofalltheconstituenciesin EnglandeveryfiveyearsOurroleistomake recommendationstoParliamentfornew constituencyboundaries
12 The ChairoftheCommissionistheSpeaker oftheHouseofCommonsbutbyconvention heorshedoesnotparticipatein theformulationoftheCommissionrsquosrecommendations norintheconductofthereview TheDeputyChairMrJusticeSalesandtwo furtherCommissionerstakedecisionsonrecommendations fornewconstituencyboundaries Theyareassistedintheirtaskby27 AssistantCommissionersthreeallocatedtoeach ofthenineregionsofEnglandFurtherinformation abouttheCommissionersandAssistant CommissionerscanbefoundinthelsquoAbout usrsquosectionofourwebsite1
13 Our websitealsocontainsalltheinformation neededtoviewandcommentonour revisedproposalsYoucanalsocontactus withanygeneralenquiriesbyemailinginformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk by calling02072761102orbywritingto
The SecretarytotheCommissionBoundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
1 At wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukabout‑us
WestNorth 4
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
2 Background to the review
21 In February2011theUKParliamentpassed legislation2statingthatallfourBoundary CommissionscoveringtheUK(thereare separateCommissionsforScotlandWalesand NorthernIreland)mustconductareviewof Parliamentaryconstituencyboundariesandmake recommendationstoGovernmentbyOctober 2013ThefourCommissionsworkseparately andthisreportcoversonlytheworkof theBoundaryCommissionforEnglandandin particularintroducesourrevisedproposalsfor theNorthWest
22 Parliamentary constituencyboundariesare importantastheydefinetheareathataMember ofParliamentwillrepresentonceelected toParliamentThenextGeneralElection isexpectedtobein2015Thereforeany recommendationswemakeifacceptedare likelytobeusedforthefirsttimeattheGeneral Electionin2015
23 The legislationweworktostatesthatthere willbe600Parliamentaryconstituenciescovering theUKndashareductionof50fromthecurrent numberForEnglandthatmeansthatthe numberofconstituenciesmustreducefrom 533to502Therearealsonewrulesthatthe Commissionhastoadheretowhenconducting thereviewndashafullsetofrulescanbefoundinourA guide to the 2013 Review3 published inthesummerof2011buttheyarealso summarisedlaterinthischapterMostsignificantly therulesstatethateveryconstituency werecommend(withtheexception oftwocoveringtheIsleofWight)must containbetween72810and80473electors
24 This isasignificantchangetotheoldrules underwhichParliamentaryboundaryreviews tookplacewhereachievingasclose
to theaveragenumberofelectorsineachconstituency wasanaimbutnotanoverridinglegal necessityForexampleinEnglandconstituencies currentlyrangeinelectoratesizefrom 55077to110924Achievingamoreevendistribution ofelectorsineveryconstituencyacross Englandtogetherwiththereductioninthe totalnumberofconstituenciesmeansthata significantamountofchangetotheexistingmap ofconstituenciesisinevitable
25 A guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailedbackgroundandexplainsall thepoliciesandproceduresthatwearefollowing inconductingthereviewingreaterdepth thaninthisconsultationdocumentWe encourageanyonewishingtobeinvolvedin thereviewtoreadtheGuidetoenablegreater understandingoftherulesandconstraints placedontheCommissionespecially iftheyareintendingtocommenton ourrevisedproposals
The rules in the legislation
26 The rulescontainedinthelegislationstatethat everyconstituencyinEngland(excepttwo coveringtheIsleofWight)musthaveanelectorate ofbetween72810and80473ndashthat is5eithersideoftheelectoralquotaof76641 Thelegislationalsostatesthatwhendeciding onboundariestheCommissionmayalso takeintoaccount
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c boundaries ofexistingconstituenciesand
2 The ParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituenciesAct2011availableatwwwlegislationgovuk3 Available atwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovukpublicationsandatallplacesofdeposit
5 WestNorth
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
reviewthetoBackground2
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
27 It isessentialtounderstandthatnoneof thefactorsmentionedinthelistaboveoverrides thenecessitytoachieveanelectoratein eachconstituencythatiswithintherangeallowed asexplainedpreviouslyInrelationtolocal governmentboundariesinparticularitshould benotedthatweareobligedtotakeinto accountlocalgovernmentboundariesasthey existedinMay2010Ourinitialproposalsfor theregionandtheaccompanyingmapswere basedonthewardsastheyexistedinMay 2010andourrevisedproposalscontainedwithin thisreportcontinuetobebasedonthose boundariesA guide to the 2013 Review outlines furtherourpolicyonhowandto whatextentwetakeintoaccountlocalgovernment boundaries
28 In ourinitialproposalswetookinto accounttheboundariesofexistingconstituencies sofaraswecouldandtriedtoretain existingconstituencieswherepossibleso longastheotherfactorscouldalsobesatisfied Asmentionedearlierinthissectionbecause ofthescaleofchangerequiredtofulfilthe obligationsimposedonusbythenewrules thisproveddifficultOurinitialproposalsretained justover9oftheexistingconstituencies intheNorthWestndashtheremainder werenewconstituencies(althoughin anumberofcaseswewereabletolimitthechanges toexistingconstituenciesmakingonlyminor changesasnecessarytoenableustocomply withthenewrules)
29 Among themanyargumentsweheardin responsetotheconsultationsonourinitialproposals wastheneedtohaveparticularregard tothisfactoroftherulestowhichwework Whilesomerespondentsputahighervalue onretainingexistingconstituency
boundaries overtheotherfactorsintherulesit istheCommissionrsquostasktoensurethatallthefactors arebalancedsatisfactorilyAswesetout inthecourseofthisreportourrevisedproposals retain14oftheexisting75constituencies intheNorthWest
The use of the regions used for European elections
210 Our proposalsarebasedonthenineregions usedforEuropeanelectionsThisreport relatestotheNorthWestregionThereare eightotherseparatereportscontainingourrevised proposalsfortheotherregionsInearly2011 followingaconsultationexerciseontheissues wedecidedtousetheseregionsasabasis forworkingoutourinitialproposalsYou canfindmoredetailsinA guide to the 2013 Review andonourwebsiteWestatedin ourinitialproposalsreportthatwhilethisapproach doesnotpreventanyonefrommaking proposalstousthatcrossregionalboundaries wewouldneedtohavecompellingreasons providedtoustopersuadeustodepart fromtheregion‑basedapproach
211 In responsetotheconsultationsonourinitial proposalswedidnotreceivesufficientevidence tosuggestthatweshoulddepartfrom theregionalapproachtothisreviewTherefore thisreportcontinuestousetheregions asabasisforproposalsforconstituencies
Timetable for the review
Stage one ndash initial proposals
212 We beganthisreviewinMarch2011bypublishing breakdownsoftheelectorateforeach wardlocalgovernmentauthorityandexisting constituencywhichwerepreparedusing electoratedataprovidedbylocalauthorities andtheOfficeforNationalStatistics Theseareavailableontheregional
WestNorth 6
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-
reviewthetoBackground2
pages ofourwebsiteTheCommissionspenta numberofmonthsconsideringthefactorsoutlined aboveanddrawingupourinitialproposals Wepublishedourinitialproposalsfor consultationforeachofEnglandrsquosnineregions on13September2011
Stage two ndash consultation on initial proposals
213 We consultedonourinitialproposalsfor 12weeksfrom13September2011to5 December2011Thisconsultationperiodalsoincluded holding36publichearingsatwhichpeople hadtheopportunitytomakeoralrepresentations Wereceivedover22000unique writtenrepresentationsacrossthecountry asawholeincluding12519uniquewritten representationsrelatingtotheNorthWest Wealsoheard229oralrepresentationsat thefivepublichearingsintheNorthWestWe aregratefultoallthosewhotookthetimeand troubletoreadandrespondtoourinitialproposals
Stage three ndash consultation on representations received
214 The legislationrequiresustopublishallthe representationswereceivedonourinitialproposals andtoallowpeopletomakerepresentations onthemforafour‑weekperiod Wepublishedtherepresentationson6 March2012andinvitedcommentsonthemuntil 3April2012Wereceived700uniquewritten representationsduringthatfour‑weekperiod
Stage four ndash publication of revised proposals
215 As weoutlineinchapter3havingconsidered theevidencepresentedtouswehave decidedthattheevidenceissuchthatitis appropriatetoreviseourinitialproposalsinsome areasThereforeaswearerequiredtodo (underthelegislation)on16October2012we publishedthisreportndashNorth West Revised
proposals ndashalongsideeightothersoneforeach oftheotherregionsinEnglandWeareconsulting onourrevisedproposalsforthestatutory eight‑weekperiodwhichcloseson 10December2012Unliketheinitialconsultation periodthereisnoprovisioninthelegislation forfurtherpublichearingsnoristhere arepeatofthefour‑weekperiodforcommenting ontherepresentationsofothersChapter 4outlineshowyoucancontributeduring thisconsultationperiod
Stage five ndash final recommendations
216 Once theconsultationonrevisedproposals hasclosedon10December2012we willconsideralltherepresentationsreceived atthisstageandthroughoutthereview beforemakingfinalrecommendationsto theGovernmentThelegislationstatesthatwe mustdothisby1October2013Furtherdetails aboutwhattheGovernmentandParliament mustdotoimplementourrecommendations arecontainedinA guide to the 2013 Review
217 At thelaunchofeachstageofconsultation wehavetakenandarecontinuingto takeallreasonablestepstopubliciseourproposals sothatasmanypeopleaspossibleare awareoftheconsultationandcantaketheopportunity tocontributetoourreviewofconstituencies
7 WestNorth
3 Revised proposals for the North West
31 In autumn2011weappointedthreeAssistant CommissionersfortheNorthWest ndashMarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeil Wardndashtoassistuswiththeanalysisoftherepresentations receivedduringthefirsttwo consultationperiodsWeaskedthemto considerallthewrittenandoralrepresentations andmakerecommendationstous onwhetherourinitialproposalsshouldberevised inlightoftherepresentations
32 What followsinthischapteristheirfullreport tousAftercarefulconsiderationoftheirreport anddiscussionwiththeAssistantCommissioners themselvesweacceptandendorse theirrecommendationsinfullandconfirm thatthoserecommendationsformourrevised proposalsWeaccepttheirreasoningand theconclusionstheyhavedrawnfromtheevidence receivedintherepresentations
33 In particularweaccepttheevidencetheyset outandtheirconclusionthattheinitialproposals fortheMerseyBanksconstituencywere notsatisfactoryWefoundtherevisionsthey madetotheinitialproposalstoaccommodate thechangestheyrecommendedin relationtotheMerseyBanksconstituencyto bepersuasiveWenoteinthatregardtheconsequential difficultiesfacedbytheAssistantCommissioners infindingasolutiontotheissues regardingtheCityofChesterandsurrounding villagesandweagreewiththewayin whichtheyhaveresolvedthosedifficultiesWe concurwiththeirviewthatitisnotnecessary tosplitwardsinCheshireinorderto cometoanacceptablesolution
34 We arealsopersuadedbythereasoningunderlying theAssistantCommissionersrsquorecommendation tocrosstheManchesterLancashire boundarybetweenBoltonNorthand Darwenasanadjustmenttotheinitialproposals intermsofimprovementsbothtothe constituenciesinGreaterManchesterandto thoseineastLancashire
35 Whilst weacknowledgethedifficultiesfaced bytheAssistantCommissionersinmaking recommendationsforrevisionstoourconstituencies ineastLancashireparticularlyrelating toPendleRibbleValleyBurnleyandHyndburn wearesatisfiedthattheirrecommendations forrevisionsintheseareasstrike abetterbalancebetweenthestatutoryfactors thandidtheinitialproposals
WestNorth 8
Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
Introduction
AC1 The BoundaryCommissionforEngland4(lsquothe Commissionrsquo)isrequired tosubmita
report totheSecretaryofStatebefore1 October2013showingtheconstituenciesintowhich itrecommendsthatEnglandbedividedin ordertogiveeffecttotherulessetoutinlegislation 5TheCommissiondeterminedthatEngland shouldforthispurposebedividedinto regionsoneofwhichistheNorthWest6
AC2 The SecretaryofStatehasappointed7us (MarkSavillNicholasElliottQCandNeilWard) asAssistantCommissionerstoassisttheCommission inthedischargeofitsfunctionswith respecttotheNorthWestWhileMarkSavill wasdesignatedasLeadAssistantCommissioner fortheregionandassuchhasled theworkfortheNorthWestwehaveallthree agreedthecontentsofthisreport
AC3 Public hearingschairedbyMarkSavilland attendedbymembersoftheCommissionrsquos staffwereheldintheNorthWest in2011asfollows
bull on 11ndash12OctoberinManchester
bull on 13ndash14OctoberinChester
bull on 17ndash18OctoberinCarlisle
bull on 20ndash21OctoberinLiverpooland
bull on 24ndash25OctoberinPreston
AC4 During theinitialconsultationperiod229 peopleontheirownbehalforrepresenting organisationsmadeoralrepresentations atthepublichearingsand
12519 peopleororganisationsmadeuniquewritten representationsInthesecondaryconsultation period700peopleororganisations madeuniquewritten representations
AC5 Following theconclusionofthetwoconsultation periodsthetaskwhichwehavebeen setbytheCommissionistoreviewallthe representationsthathavebeenmade(whether oralorwritten)andtoprovidetothe Commissionawrittenreportthatmakesrecommendations astowhetherndashandifsohow ndashtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsshouldbe revised
AC6 We werenotinvolvedinthepreparationof theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsTheevidence thatwehavereceivedfromtheCommission toexplainandjustifyitsinitialproposals iscontainedinthebookletpublishedby theCommissionentitledNorth West Initial proposals Whilewehavebeenprovidedwithmaps andotherassistancebytheSecretariatto theCommissionwehaveneithersoughtnor beenprovidedwithevidencefromtheCommission thathasnotbeenpublished
AC7 The distributionofParliamentaryconstituencies isgovernedbyruleslaiddownin theParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule 2whichwassubstantiallyamendedby theParliamentaryVotingSystemandConstituencies Act2011Asaresultoftheamendments theruleswhichgovernthecurrent reviewofconstituencyboundariesare differentinimportantrespectsfromthose whichappliedtopreviousreviewsMostsignificantly thenewlegislationhasintroducedrequirements forafixednumberof
4 Parliamentary ConstituenciesAct1986section35 The rulesaresetoutintheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule2asamended6 A guide to the 2013 Review publishedbytheCommissionandNorth West Initial proposalsalsopublishedbytheCommission7 Pursuant totheParliamentaryConstituenciesAct1986Schedule1paragraph6
9 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituencies andplacesanupperandlower limitonthesizeoftheelectorateofanyconstituency saveinrelationtofourprotectedconstituencies thatareoutsidetheNorthWestApplying thenewstatutoryelectoraterange hasrequiredextensiveandwide‑ranging changes
AC8 Subject tothemandatoryprovisionofRule 2thattheelectorateofaconstituencyisto bewithin5oftheelectoralquotaRule5enables theCommissiontotakeintoaccountthe followingfourfactors8
a special geographicalconsiderationsincluding thesizeshapeandaccessibilityof aconstituency
b local governmentboundariesastheyexisted on6May2010
c the boundariesofexistingconstituenciesand
d any localtiesthatwouldbebrokenbychanges inconstituencies
AC9 While Rule2requiresthattheelectorate ofeachconstituencybewithin5of theelectoralquotathisdoesnotrequirethe Commissiontodefineconstituenciesasclose aspossibletotheelectoralquotaRule2therefore allowsadegreeofflexibilitywhichcontributes totheabilityoftheCommissionto giveeffecttosomeextenttothefactorsin Rule5
AC10 We havereadallthewrittenrepresentations andthetranscriptsofthepublic hearingstogetherwiththewrittenmaterial thatwashandedtotheLeadAssistantCommissioner andtheCommissionstaffatthe
public hearingsWeareverygratefultothemany peoplewhomusthaveputinagreatdeal oftimeandeffortinpreparingtheirrepresentations Wearegratefulalsotothosewho appearedatthepublichearingsforpresenting theirrepresentationsinasuccinctmanner whichenabledalltherepresentationsto beheardproperlywhileadheringtothetwo‑day limitforeachhearingrequiredbythe legislation
AC11 In makingourrecommendationstotheCommission wehavetakenintoconsiderationall therepresentations(bothwrittenandoral)and allthewrittenmaterialhandedinbyspeakers atthepublichearingsInthisreportwe havedealtwithwhatweconsidertobethemain issuesandthemainpointsthathavearisen fromalltherepresentationsmadeWe havenotthereforecommentedonallthe representationsmadebutwehavenonetheless consideredalltherepresentationsmade incomingtoourconclusionsandmakingour recommendationsWehavetakenaccountof allthefactorslistedinRule5asfaraspossible subjecttothestatutoryelectoraterange Informulatingourrecommendationswe havefoundthatrepresentationswhichproposed viablesolutionsinlinewiththerulesas laiddownbyParliamenthaveoftencarriedmore weightthanthosewhichdisagreedwiththe Commissionrsquosinitialproposalswithoutoffering alternativesOurrecommendationstothe Commissionarethereforebasedonourview ofthebestreflectionofthestatutoryfactors (subjecttotheelectoraterange)forthe NorthWest
AC12 Our reportbeginswithanoverviewofthe mainissuesweencounteredduringourconsideration oftheregionfollowedbya
8 An explanationastohowtheCommissionhasinterpretedandappliedthesefactors(andanexplanationoffactorsthatarenotrelevant) issetoutinparagraphs26ndash40ofthebookletA guide to the 2013 ReviewpublishedbytheCommissionItmaybenoted thatSchedule2listsafifthfactorwhichdoesnotapplytothe2013Reviewbutwillapplytosubsequentreviewslsquoe theinconveniencesattendantonsuchchangesrsquo
WestNorth 10
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
section relatingtothequestionofthedivisionof theNorthWestintosub‑regionsWethenset outthebasisofourrecommendationsforconstituency boundariesineachsub‑regionThe Commissionhasproposed(asitwasrequired todo)anameanddesignationforeach oftheconstituenciesinitsinitialproposals Someoftherepresentationsthat havebeenmadesuggestnamesdifferentfrom thoseproposedbytheCommissionInaddition someofourproposedchangestotheCommissionrsquos proposalsmeanthattheoriginalname isnolongerappropriateWewillmakeour recommendationsaboutnamesanddesignations afterwehavesetoutandexplained ourrecommendationsaboutconstituency boundaries
Overview
Introduction and main issues
AC13 In thecourseofourworkanumberof issueshavemorethanonceinfluencedtheway inwhichwehavereachedourrecommendations Wesetouttheparticulareffects ofthemindetailineachsub‑regionalsection butlistthemheretogetherwithasummary ofourapproachtoeachofthem
AC14 First wesoonrealisedthatproducingalsquobestrsquo recommendationinsomecaseswouldprove impossibleWithregretwehavebeencompelled sometimestoadoptwhathasbeendescribed somewhatinelegantlyasthelsquoleastworstrsquo optionDuetothesizeandcomplexityof theNorthWestthenumerousdifferentopinions expressedandthenumericalconstraints imposedbystatutewehaveonsome occasionsbeenabletoproducearecommendation thatwillsatisfyonlysomeof thosewhohavemaderepresentationsandnot alwaysthosemostaffectedbyproposedchanges Wherethishasoccurredwehaverecommended theoptionthatproduces
11 WestNorth
a moreacceptablesolutionoverallforthe regionsub‑regionandhavesetoutour reasoning
AC15 Second wehaveencounteredtheproblem ofwardsizesintermsofelectorateWards arethebasicbuildingblocksforareview suchasthisandthesmallertheyarethe moreflexibilitywehaveHoweverincertaininstances thewardsizeshavebeensufficientlylarge toconstraintheoptionsavailabletousExamples ofthisincludethewardsaroundChester inCheshireandtheWirralKirkdaleClubmoor andSpeke‑GarstononMerseysideAddressing thisissueleadsustothefrequentlysuggested resolutionnamelythesplittingof wards
AC16 In essencewhathasbeenarguedisthat incertaincasesthewardsweareusinghave beensupersededbymorerecentandcritically smallerwardswhichwouldallowforeasier resolutionofconstituencyconfigurationsand betterfulfilmentoftherelevantcriteriaIt issuggestedthattheexisting2010wardcould besplitalongtheselinesinordertoachieve asolutionInparticularthishasbeenthe caseinrelationtothewardsinCheshire
AC17 We haveregardtoparagraphs37and38 oftheCommissionrsquosA guide to the 2013 Review whichstatethatassetoutinstatutethe localgovernmentboundariestheCommission mayhaveregardtoarethosethat existedon6May2010
AC18 We havenotedthatadeparturefromthis canoccurinlsquolimitedcircumstancesrsquoif considerationisbeinggiventodividingaward (asitexistedon6May2010)inordertomeet thestatutoryelectoraterangeEquallywe alsobearinmindparagraph31oftheGuidewhich explainsthattheviewoftheCommissionis thatlsquointheabsenceofexceptionalandcompelling circumstanceshellipitwouldnotbe
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
appropriate todividewardsincaseswhereitispossible toconstructconstituenciesthatmeetthe statutoryelectoraterangewithoutdividingthemrsquo Wenotethatlsquoexceptionalrsquoandlsquocompellingrsquo mustbereadconjunctivelyandwhen takentogethersetahighbenchmarkin ourview
AC19 We havesoughttoapplythisstringenttest inallindividualcasesbutdoingsointheoverall contextoftheregionWehavebeencareful nottobeinfluencedbythequantityandor vehemenceofanyrepresentationsJust becauseaninitialproposalmightappearto anindividualororganisationtobeobjectionable nonsensicalunfairorsimplyhard toacceptitdoesnotautomaticallymeanthat itisalsoexceptionalandcompellingsoasto justifysplittingawardtoamenditItmustbe rememberedthatwearerecommendingthe redrawingofParliamentaryelectoralconstituency boundariesnotpreventingthefree movementofindividualstheirchoiceofeducational establishmentsoraccesstoanyparticular facilitiesoramenities
AC20 Third wehavesometimesbeenrequired toaddressthedivisionoftheelectorates ofatownorcityrsquoswardsbetweenconstituencies ExamplesofthisincludeFormby KirkbyLeighChesterandBurnleyThere isnorequirementtoensurethatatownis containedwhollywithinasingleconstituencybut thecourseofdividingatowncanofcourse disruptlocaltiesHoweverthisisnotalways thecaseasdifferentareasoftownssometimes havetheirownidentitiesNevertheless wehavesoughttoavoiddoingthis wherepossiblebuthavenotalwaysbeenable todosowhentheoverallresolutionofa sub‑regionorindeedtheregionasawholehas tobeconsidered
AC21 Fourth anissuethatwehavehadto addresswithintheNorthWestisthatoflsquodetached partsrsquo9withinaconstituencyThis wasparticularlyacuteinrelationtothewards ofHaleandDittonformingpartoftheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyunderthe initialproposalsItalsoaroseinrespectofthe extendedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsandelsewhereincluding inanumberofcounter‑proposalsThe policyoftheCommissioninrelationtolsquodetached partsrsquoissetoutinparagraph35of A guide to the 2013 ReviewTheaimisasfar aspossibletoavoidthecreationofconstituencies whichcontaindetachedparts
AC22 We havesoughttofollowthispolicyin makingourrecommendationsHoweverithas notalwaysbeenpossibleWheretheonlyphysical connectionbetweenonepartofaconstituency andanotherrequirestravelthrough adifferentconstituencywehavesought toensurethatitisofaveryminimalnature Furthermorewhereverwehavedoneso underourrecommendationsthishasbeenbecause ithasotherwiseresultedinthebestconfiguration withinthesub‑region
AC23 The finalissuethathascausedusconcern hasbeentheneedduetotheelectoral quotarequirementtocrosssub‑regional boundariesInourviewcreatingsuch constituenciescanveryoftencausethe greatestdisruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexistingconstituency boundariesandsowehavesought tokeeptheseoccasionstoaminimum
Sub-regional approach
AC24 The distributionofelectorsacrossthreecounties andtwometropolitanareasintheNorth Westhasmeantthatallocatingawhole
9 lsquoDetached partsrsquoarewheretheonlyphysicalconnectionbetweenonepartoftheconstituencyandtheremainderwouldrequire travelthroughadifferentconstituency
WestNorth 12
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
number ofconstituencieswithincountieswhich fallwithin5oftheelectoralquotais notalwayspossibleIndevelopingtheconstituencies withintheNorthWest(andindeed throughoutEngland)theCommissionadopted theapproachofidentifyingsub‑regions withinwhichconstituenciescould beallocatedThiscontrastswiththepractice inpreviousreviewswhichsoughtto createconstituencieswithincountiesorboroughs orbylsquopairingrsquoboroughsforthepurpose ofallocation
AC25 The Commissionsuggestedadivisionof theNorthWestintofivesub‑regionsCheshire andtheWirralGreaterManchesterLancashire MerseysideandCumbriaItwillbe notedthatWirralhasbeenplacedwithCheshire duetothegeographicalconstraintsimposed bythisareaWerecognisethattheoverall approachadoptedbytheCommissionhas beenpurelypracticalbutinourviewitworks wellandrespectslocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC26 In ourexperiencebothatpublichearings andinthewrittenrepresentationsthis newapproachwaswelcomedThisisunderstandable sinceitmakesthetaskmoremanageable anditensuresthattherulesforthe redistributionofconstituenciescanbemetIn generalthecounter‑proposalsthatweresubmitted adoptedthesameapproach
AC27 However inordertoachievenumerically compliantconstituenciestheinitialproposals acceptedthatthereisaneedtocross sub‑regionalboundariesonoccasion
AC28 The LabourPartytentativelyacceptedthe sub‑regionalapproachintheinitialproposals butreserveditspositioninrelationto cross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituencies
arguing thatthereisnotnecessarilyanygreater meritinhavingfewerconstituenciescrossing oversub‑regionalboundariesiftheresult ofthatmaycompromisetheapplicationof otherstatutoryfactorsassetoutinparagraph 5(1)ofSchedule2totheParliamentary ConstituenciesAct198610Inourview whileeachcasemustbetakenonitsownmerits creatingacross‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency almostbydefinitioncreatesasignificant disruptionoflocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesandexisting constituencies
AC29 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission (IP025331)proposedreconfiguringthe Merseysidesub‑regiontoincludefirstlyHalton andWarringtonwardsfromtheCommissionrsquos CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region andsecondlythreeSeftonwardswithin theWestLancashireconstituencyaswell asthreeWestLancashirewardswithinthe SouthportconstituencyAnumberofindividuals offeredsimilarlsquobreak‑outrsquoproposals Thisallowedthemtoputforwardcounter‑proposals toaddresstheMerseyBankscross‑River Merseyinitialproposalandavoidseparating thewardscoveringthetownofFormby intheBoroughofSefton
AC30 In additiontheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposal containedthefollowingsuggestedchanges fourBurywardsincludedinaRossendale andRamsbottomcross‑countyboundary constituencyaStockportwardsplit betweenHazelGroveandCheadleandsplitting theGowywardbetweenanEllesmerePort andHeswallconstituencyandaWinsford constituency
AC31 We addresstheseproposalsincontextin ourrecommendationsforeachsub‑regionbelow butitisworthnotingherethatwereject
10 See page44oftheinitialrepresentationsbytheLabourParty(IP025315)
13 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
this attempttoreconfigureineffectthreesub‑regions asinourviewalternativesolutionsexist whichcanbeachievedwithouttheconsiderable upheavalthatwouldberequiredin implementingthesecounter‑proposals
AC32 The ConservativePartysupportedtheCommissionrsquos approachtothesub‑regions(IP25314)
AC33 In settingoutourrecommendationswe havefollowedthecourseadoptedbytheCommission whichistodescribeourproposedconstituencies byreferencetotherespectivesub‑regions whichmakeuptheNorthWestJust astheCommissiondidwestartwithCheshire andtheWirralThatisappropriatesince itisinthissub‑regionthatcertainofthemost contentiousissuesariseWethenmoveinto GreaterManchesterbeforemovingontoconsider Lancashirestartinghereintheeastat thecross‑countyboundaryconstituencywe haverecommendedThenfromwestLancashire wemoveintoMerseysidebefore finallymakingourrecommendationsfor Cumbria
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC34 As indicatedwardsizesandtheshapeof theWirralpeninsulahaveaffectedourrecommendations inthissub‑regionItwasaccepted thattherehadtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencybuttherewasmuchopposition toitslocationTherewereanumberof counter‑proposalsbutmanyofthesewerebased onsplittingwardsinordertoresolvetheissues surroundingvillagestotheeastofChester thelsquoChestervillagesrsquo
AC35 There wassignificantoppositiontothree oftheinitialproposalsthatfortheproposed MerseyBanksconstituencyduetotwo detachedwardsandtoalesserextentitssize andmake‑upthatfortheproposed
Winsford constituencyduetotheconcernsofthe Chestervillageswhoseresidentsfelttheywere beinglsquosplitrsquofromChesterandthatfora cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyatPoynton Residentshereexpressedthefirmview thattheyhadnothingincommonwiththe inhabitantsofHazelGroveTherewasalso concernastothedegreeofdisruptionto voterscausedbytheinitialproposalsforWarrington Supportemergedforthereconfiguration ofWirralalongnorthndashsouthlines andthereadyresolutionoftheproposedBirkenhead andWallaseyconstituencies
AC36 While thereweresomeconcernsabout theinitialproposalswhichmadesomealterations toconstituenciestotheeastofthesub‑region ndashforexampleMacclesfieldandNorthwich ndashthesewerenotonthesamelevelas otherissuesreferredtoabove
AC37 In resolvingthemajorissueswehavesought tocauseaslittledisruptionelsewhereas possible
Greater Manchester
AC38 Due tothesizeofthewardswithinGreater Manchesteritisnotfeasibletoarrangeconstituencies composedentirelyofwardsfrom withinthesub‑regionandatthesametime ensurethatsuchconstituenciesarecompliant numericallywiththeelectoralquota
AC39 Consequently undertheinitialproposals theGreaterManchestersub‑regioncomprised 26constituencieswithtwoofthembeing cross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesone withCheshireandonewithLancashireIt wasgenerallyacceptedthattherehadtobe oneormoreconstituenciescrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryTherewereaconsiderable numberofcounter‑proposalsfor GreaterManchesterallofwhichinvolvedbreaching theboundaryofGreaterManchester
WestNorth 14
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Inevitably therewereobjectionstothelocationwherever across‑countyboundaryconstituency wascreated
AC40 However theoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasnotconfinedtothatoneissueThe underlyingoppositiontotheinitialproposals wasbasedontheconceptthattheCommission hadbeentooradicalineliminatingexisting constituenciesanddividingsettledcommunities Manyofthecounter‑proposalshave soughttoremedythaterrorWehaveadopted asimilarcourseEighteenofour26 recommendedconstituenciesconsistofexisting constituenciesorconstituenciesthathave undergoneminimalchangeSuchchangeconsists oftheadditionofjustonewardorthetransfer outofonewardfromtheexistingconstituency anditsreplacementbyanotherward fromaneighbouringconstituency
AC41 We haveadoptedthesamecourseas theCommissionbyrecommendingtwocross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituenciesone betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashire theotherbetweenGreaterManchester andCheshireThefirstoccursnorth ofBoltoninourrecommendedBoltonNorth andDarwenconstituencyWerecommend thisconstituencyinplaceoftheRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyset outintheinitialproposalsThesecondisa proposedHazelGroveandPoyntonconstituency Despitethelevelofoppositionwe haveadoptedtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forsuchaconstituencyasitenabledus toarriveatthebestsolutionfortheconfiguration oftheconstituencieswithinboth GreaterManchesterandCheshireincluding Wirral
Lancashire
AC42 The centraldifficultyandasourceofvociferous oppositionwithinthissub‑region
emerged fromtheinitialproposalsforeastLancashire namelythosedividingtheboroughs ofHyndburnandPendleandthetown ofBurnleyTherewasagreementthatin ordertomeetthedemandsoftheelectoralquota itwouldbeimpossibletokeepbothboroughs intactandwehavehadtomakeadecision astowhichofthetwoshouldbedivided toagreaterdegreethantheother
AC43 Again across‑sub‑regionalboundaryconstituency wasrequiredandwehavediffered fromtheCommissionbyrecommending thatitbelocatedbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenThishashadobvious effectsontheconfigurationofconstituencies ineastLancashire
AC44 In additiontheinitialproposalsforthe RibbleValleyandPrestonhavemetwithconcern Inparticulartherewasuniversalopposition totheexclusionoftheFishwickward fromaproposedPrestonconstituencyand anumberoflsquoruralrsquowardsfromtheproposed RibbleValleyconstituencyThesehave ledustomakeasmallalterationtothePreston andLancasterconstituenciesandtothe RibbleValleyconstituency
AC45 In ordertomeetalloftheseconcernswe haverecommendedsignificantchangesinthis sub‑regionTherewasbroadsupportforthe initialproposalsfortheBlackpoolandFleetwood areasaswellasfortheproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituency
Merseyside
AC46 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalstodraw theMerseysidesub‑regionmorenarrowlythan theMetropolitanCountyofMerseysideby consideringWirralalongsideCheshireconstituencies ratherthanacrosstheMerseymet withuniversalconsentasdiditsinitial
15 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals tocreatejusttennewconstituenciesrather thantheexisting11
AC47 Of thesetentheCommissionfeltable torecommendthatjusttwoexistingconstituencies beretained(StHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhiston)andofferedminimal changestotheexistingSouthportconstituency Theinitialproposalsforthesethree constituenciesmetwithbroadsupportand wehavebeenabletorecommendtheiracceptance Howeversubstantialamendmentsto theremaininginitialproposalswereputforward incounter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partieslocalauthoritiesandthemajority ofindividualrepresentations
AC48 We havebeenabletorecommendthata furtherexistingconstituencyberetainedthat ofKnowsleyandthattherebeminoradjustments totheexistingLiverpoolWestDerby BootleandSeftonCentralconstituencies Insomecaseswehaveproposed newnamesfortheseconstituenciesin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquosnamingpolicies Ourrecommendationsfortheremaining constituenciesareintendedbetterto respectlocalcommunitytiesandlocalauthority boundaries
Cumbria
AC49 Cumbria hassignificantgeographicalconstraints Forexampleitcontainsboththelargest mountainsandthebiggestlakesinEngland andthesedeterminethenaturalboundaries withinthecountyTheyalsodetermine thesocio‑economicdivisionswithinCumbria thenatureoftheindustriesthatcan beandarepursuedthetraditionalcommunities andservicecentresandthetransport linksthatserveandconnectthemIn ourviewtheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsfailed toreflectthisandassuchwerealmost universallyrejectedbythosefrom
whom wereceivedrepresentationsOurrecommendations addressthis
AC50 The electoralquotalimitsmeantthatthe Commissionwasrequiredtoreducethenumber ofconstituenciesitcouldrecommendfor CumbriafromsixtofiveThisreceivedwidespread acceptancebuttheinitialproposals barthoseforanexpandedCarlisleconstituency werewidelyregardedasimpracticable andinneedofradicalrevisionto takeaccountofthesubstantialgeographicalconstraints mentionedabove
AC51 There washoweverageneralconsensus astothebestconfigurationswithsome minorvariationsattheedgesforthefour constituenciesbeyondtheCityofCarlisleboth tobuildonthegeneralpatternoftheexisting constituenciesandtoreflectthemaincommunity communicationandtransportlinks acrossthecountyWeconcurredThere wasanalternativecounter‑proposalput forwardbytheLabourPartyandothersfor aCarlisleconstituencythatextendedwestwards totheSolwaycoastratherthaneastwards toembraceallbutone(Dalston)ofthe CityofCarlislewardsWehaverejectedthis counter‑proposalandhaveadoptedtheinitial proposalforCarlislewhichwasotherwise widelysupported
AC52 We nowturntoaddressingreaterdetail theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforthe respectivesub‑regionsmakinguptheNorth Westandourrecommendationsforthe constituenciesLiketheinitialproposalswe startwiththeCheshireandtheWirralsub‑region
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC53 There arecurrently15constituenciesin thissub‑regionwhichincludestheunitaryauthorities ofCheshireEastCheshireWest
16 North West
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and ChesterHaltonandWarringtonandtheMetropolitan BoroughofWirralOnlythreeofthese constituencies(CongletonCreweandNantwich andMacclesfield)haveelectorateswithin 5oftheelectoralquotaTheelectorates ofmanyoftheremainingconstituencies fallsignificantlybelowtherequired lowerlimit
AC54 The Commissionrsquosinitialproposalsallocated 13constituenciestothissub‑regiona reductionoftwofromtheexistingarrangement Howevertheelectoralsizeofthe sub‑regionandthegeographicalfeaturesof theareapreventtheinclusionofallwardswithin just13constituenciesTheeffectofthisis thatitbecomesnecessarytocrosstheborder ofthesub‑regionatsomepoint
AC55 The sub‑regioncoversanareacomposed ofanumberofdisparatepartsStarting inthewestistheWirralpeninsulawith coastalborderspopulatedresidentiallyand withanindustrialflavourtotheeastofitThe peninsulastretchesdowntowardsChesterand ruralCheshireextendsawaytothesouthand eastofthecityAroadnetworkjoinsanumber oftownsinCheshireincludingNorthwich WinsfordKnutsfordandWilmslowwith Macclesfieldonthefareasternsideofthesub‑region andCreweandNantwichinthesouth TheM53andA540runupanddowntheWirral peninsulaTheM6motorwayrunssouthto norththroughthesub‑regionjoiningtheM56 inthenorthwhichitselfrunsacrossthenorthern partofthesub‑regionfromManchester intheeasttoChesterinthewest
AC56 We bearinmindthattherearea numberofparticulardifficultiesinthissub‑region thatinfluencedtheinitialproposalsand ourownrecommendationsTheseareofsufficient significanceinourviewtowarrant
starting ourconsiderationoftheNorthWestwith thissub‑region
AC57 First thesizeandshapeofthewardsin theunitaryauthorityofCheshireWestand ChesterWhenattemptingtocreateaconstituency andgiveeffecttothenumericalrequirements fortheelectorateitisafarharder taskwhenthebasiclsquobuildingblocksrsquothat isthewardsfromwhichitiscomposedare largeSmallerwardsallowforgreaterflexibility andalargernumberofoptionsbutwe donothavethisluxuryhereThesecondfactor thathaslimitedtheoptionsavailableto ushasbeentheshapeoftheWirralpeninsula whichconstrainstheconfigurationsthat arepossibleFinallytherearealsoanumber oftownsandcitieswhosewardsareat riskofbeingdividedamongmorethanone constituency
AC58 By wayofillustrationastotheseconstraints wequotetheLabourPartyrsquossubmission totheinitialconsultation(IP028663 p48)whichreadslsquohellipweacceptthat theCommissionhasonlylimitedoptionswithin CheshireandspecificallytheChesterarea forhowitmayallocatewholewardstoconstituencies thatwouldcontainapermittednumber ofelectorsandavoidthedivisionofthe maintownsrsquo
AC59 Turning toourrecommendationsacrucial matterinourviewisthegeographicalpoint atwhichweactuallystarttoreviewtheinitial proposalsTothatendcertainlyoneofthe mostcontentiousissuesnationwidearisingfrom thisreviewhasbeentheproposedMerseyBanks constituencyThereforeitisatthispointthat wecommenceourexaminationofthe initialproposalsfortheCheshireand theWirralsub‑region
AC60 Our rationalefordoingsoisthatnotonly isthereuniversalobjectiontothisaspect
17 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of theinitialproposalsbutalsotheramifications ofthisconstituencyaresufficiently widespreadtomakeitsresolutionfundamental toourrecommendationsbothforthis sub‑regionandforothersub‑regionswithin theNorthWest
AC61 The initialproposalforMerseyBankscreated aconstituencythatcontainswardsfrom threelocalauthoritiesandmostsignificantly notonlystretchesalongthesouthern bankoftheRiverMerseybutalsoextends toitsnorthernbankThereisaccessbetween thenorthernandsouthernsidesofthe riverbutonlybytheRuncornndashWidnesBridge whichislocatedattheeasternendofthe estuaryandoutsidetheproposedMerseyBanks constituency
AC62 This createsobviousdifficultieswithregard tothecriterionofspecialgeographicalconsiderations notleastconcerningcommunications withintheconstituencyMoreover thewardsofDittonandHalewouldbe detachedfromtheotherwardsbyvirtueof theirlocationontheothersideoftheriverAdditionally thesetwowardsarepartofHalton Boroughandthereforeifincludedwithin theconstituencywouldincreasethenumber oflocalauthoritiescontainedwithinit tothree
AC63 The reasoningbehindtheCommissionrsquosinitial proposalshereisjustifiedinpartbycertain contrastingbeneficialeffectsofsucha constituencyelsewhereinthesub‑regionthe firstofwhichisthatthecentreofthecityof Chesterwouldnotbedividedbetweenconstituencies Wereturntothisdifficultissueat paragraphAC90Furthermoreaccordingtothe Commissionrsquoscalculationsthefollowingproblems couldarisewithoutthesetwodetached wardsthewardscoveringthetownsof WinsfordandNantwichwouldbesplit
between twoconstituenciesaconstituencywould becreatedcombiningwardsfromthecentre ofWarringtonwithKnutsfordandthesurrounding areaandfinallynoexistingconstituencies wouldberetainedwithinthe sub‑region
AC64 For thereasonssetoutbelowtheseproblems andtheissueofdetachedwardscanbe avoidedAstheinitialproposalforMerseyBanks offendssosignificantlyagainstthecriteria bywhichwemayassessitwecannotrecommend itWehavereceivedaverylargevolume ofrepresentationsfromthemainpolitical partiesotherorganisationsandindividuals allofwhoopposeitonthebasisthat itdoesnotrespectlocaltiesorlocalgovernment boundariesandraisesrealissuesof accessibilityandshape
AC65 While wetryalwaystorefertotherelevant criteriaAndrewMillerMPforEllesmere PortandNestonhasdescribedtheissue rathermorepithilyaslsquothelunacyoftheMersey Banksproposalrsquo(Chesterpublichearing Day2p42)FurthermoreMsAmeliaMcCourty hascommentedlsquoSurelytheremustbe amoresensibleconfigurationofwardsforsuch aseatrsquo(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 25)andweattempttoanswerthisintheaffirmative withourrecommendationsassetout below
AC66 The firstdecisionthatformsthebasisofour ultimaterecommendationhereisthattheHale andDittonwardsonthenorthernsideofthe RiverMerseyshouldnotformpartofaconstituency madeupofwardsfromwithinWirral andCheshireWestandChesterHowever excludingthesewardswouldmeanthat thetotalelectoratewouldthenfallbelowthe lowerpermissibleelectorallimit
AC67 Accordingly werecommendthattheHalton wardofHeathshouldreplacetheHale
WestNorth 18
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and DittonwardsWeacknowledgethattherehas beensupportforallHaltonwardsremaining together(asisalwaysthecasewithboroughs) butinthisinstanceandalsoasweset outlaterthisisunachievableifthelargerissue ofMerseyBanksistoberesolvedTherehas beensupportforthismovefromtheConservative Party(paragraph215IP025314)and anindividualsuggesteditduringtheoralhearings (MsMcCourtyChesterpublichearingDay 1p26)
AC68 We acceptthatthereareimplicationsfor otherHaltonwardsasaresultofmovingHeath Howeverwefeelcompelledtorecommend thisagainstthehighlyundesirablealternative Thefulfilmentofthecriteriainrelation toMerseyBanksandoverallinthesub‑region takeprecedencehereandwehavetried tofindthelsquoleastworstrsquooption
AC69 Our recommendedconstituencywouldstill stretchfromtheWirralwardsofBromborough andEasthaminthewestandthrough EllesmerePorttotheCheshireWestand ChesterwardofWeaverintheeastTheconstituency wouldcombineruralurbanandindustrial partsfollowingthepathoftheriverIt wouldcontainalmostallofEllesmerePortsave foronewardwhichwediscussatparagraph AC94
AC70 We recognisethatourproposalforthisconstituency willcoveralargeareacontainingdifferent interestsbutwenotethattheexistingEllesmere PortandNestonconstituencyalsocovers alargeareaincludingruralcountrysidenorth ofChesterandurbanEllesmerePortandstretches acrosstheWirralpeninsulaFurthermore theroadnetworkisgoodacrossthe constituencywiththeM53providingastrong linkandlinkingintotheA5117M56andA56 Weacceptthat(dependingonthechoiceof road)totravelmostefficientlyfromoneside
of theconstituencytotheotheritmaybenecessary toexitandthenre‑enterittothesouth ofEllesmerePort
AC71 There wassomeconcernexpressedthat drivingfromWeavertoHeathwardwouldrequire leavingtheconstituencyandtravellingthrough theWidnesandRuncornwardofBeechwood Howeverweareoftheviewthatthe distancecoveredissosmallastoenableus todisregarditonceagaininordertoresolve amoresignificantissueandbestmeet thecriteria
AC72 While themajorityofthedebatecentred ontheactualmake‑upoftheinitialproposal forthisconstituencytherewasalsosome discussionastoitsnameHavingcarefully consideredthesuggestionswebelieve thatthenameMerseyBanksandWeaver bestreflectstheconstituencythatwe haverecommendedasitreferstothetwo mainareaswhichoneormoreofthewards includes
AC73 While ourrecommendationisinlinewith theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalwe aregratefultoallthosewhohaveproducedalternative recommendationsforMerseyBanksWe donotrefertoallofthemindividuallybutwish brieflytosetoutourreasonsfornotadopting certainofthem
AC74 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor MerseyBanks(IP028663pp48ndash49)would resultindividingChestercitycentreinaway thatwefeelrespectsneitherlocaltiesnorlocal governmentboundariesandtheexistingconstituency boundaryTheLabourPartyitselfrecognises thatthisdivisionwouldbelsquohellipinamore radicalwaytothatproposedbytheCommission helliprsquoOnerepresentationdescribedit aslsquohellipmuchmoreradicalanddisruptivehelliprsquoby comparison(CR004710)Itwouldresultina constituencythatspreadsfromNestonon
19 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the Wirralpeninsulainthewesttoasdistanta pointasNorthwichintheeast
AC75 Additionally itwouldcreatethelargeand unwieldyconstituenciesofMidSouthNorth andNorthWestCheshireIndeedtheLabour Partyitselfrecognisesinitssubmissionto thesecondaryconsultationthatthelatterwould belsquocreatedfromdisparatecommunitiesrsquo(p 36CR004908)
AC76 Furthermore theeffectsoftheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalswouldalsobekeenly feltintworespectsintheeastofthesub‑region Firsttheywouldresultinnotonlyone cross‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween CheshireandGreaterManchesteratPoynton butalsoanotherthatwouldutilisetheBollington andDisleywardInturnthiswouldaffect theMacclesfieldconstituencySecondthe LymmwardcurrentlyinaWarringtonconstituency wouldbejoinedtotheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituencyThere islittlesupportforthisanditdoesnotrespect localgovernmentboundariesorlocalties WereturntotheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forWarringtonatparagraphAC135
AC77 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal (IP025331)doeskeepChesterasa wholebutitisdependentuponsplittingtheward ofGowyWehaveexplainedourapproach tosplittingwardsinourOverviewsection andwearenotoftheviewthatexceptional andcompellingreasonsexisttojustify suchastephereAlsothepartylinksHale andDittonwithMerseyside
AC78 Our recommendationrequiresnosplitwards andresolvestheissueofthedetachedwards onthenorthernbankoftheMerseyMoreover theLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalresults inamoreseveredivisionoftheHaltonwards andmostsignificantlywouldextendtheir HuytonandHalewoodconstituencyinto
Merseyside Thiswouldunnecessarilydisruptour recommendationsinthatsub‑regionandfails adequatelytorespectlocaltieslocalgovernment boundariesorexistingconstituencies Therewasalsosomeopposition expressedtosuchaproposal(eg CR004086)
AC79 Furthermore boththeLabourandLiberal Democratcounter‑proposalsinvolvethe constituencybeingextendedwestsothatit wouldcutacrossthesouthernendoftheWirral peninsulaBothproposeaconstituencystretching acrossWirralfromthewardofBromborough intheeasttoHeswallinthewest Whiletoanextentthiswouldreflectthecurrent positionaconfigurationbasedona northndashsouthaxishasreceivedconsiderablesupport andtheirproposalswouldalsoincludethe wardofNestonandParkgateWeheardsome opinionthathistoricallythishasbeenpart ofWirral(EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p3andStephenMosleyMP ChesterpublichearingDay2p6)although therewaslimitedsupportforitbeing associatedwithCheshire(CR003073)
AC80 Bearing inmindourrecommendationsfor theWirralpeninsulaconstituenciesthesecounter‑proposals donotfindfavourwithusand wenowturnourattentiontoWirralitself
AC81 The Commissionputforwardaninitialproposal foraHoylakeandNestonconstituency forwesternWirralthatrunsnorthto southandiswelllinkedbytheA540Wenote therehasbeenalmostoverwhelmingsupport forthisfromlocalpeople(CouncillorWendy ClementsChesterpublichearingDay 1pp33ndash34EstherMcVeyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2pp3ndash5andIP022322and MrHaniZakhourIP006144)ItunitesHeswall inoneconstituencyandinourviewbest fulfilsthecriteriaforlocalties
WestNorth 20
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
accessibility andlocalgovernmentboundariesAccordingly wearenotpersuadedtoamendit
AC82 However therehavebeenaverysignificant numberofrepresentationsthaturged ustorenametheconstituencyandwerecommend thatinlightoftheseandtherecommended changesitbecalledWirralDeeside Inourviewsuchanamebetterreflects thewholeareacontainedwithinit
AC83 Before wereturntotheknock‑oneffects ofourrecommendationforMerseyBanks totheeastweaddresstheremaininginitial proposalsforWirralandthefirstofthese isforaWallaseyconstituencyAslightalteration totheexistingconstituencywassuggested bytheCommissionwiththeproposed additionoftheBidstonandStJamesward inordertoachieveanelectoratewithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC84 The secondistheinitialproposalforthe Birkenheadconstituencywhichwasalsoslightly reconfiguredforthesamereasonasWallasey bymovingthewardofBidstonandSt JamestoWallaseyandaddingthewardof Bebington
AC85 These proposedmovementshaveprovoked onesimplebutinourviewpersuasive argumentinwhichitissuggestedthat thewardofBidstonandStJamesshouldin factbepartofanyBirkenheadconstituencyIt wassaid(egIP025314)thatBidstonandSt JamesiscutofffromtherestoftheWallasey constituencybytheM53motorwayand thedocksaswellasbeingseparatedbyopen groundandthereforethisdoesnotsatisfactorily respectthecriteriaforlocaltiesand accessibility
AC86 We agreewiththisargumentandrecommend thatBidstonandStJamesbepartof theproposedBirkenheadconstituency
In ordertofacilitatethisalterationwerecommend inturnthattheUptonwardbepart oftheWallaseyconstituencyItsboundarywith theBirkenheadconstituencyistheM53We notethatFrankFieldMPforBirkenheadendorses thiscourseofaction(CR004900)
AC87 Finally inthisregardboththeLabourParty andtheLiberalDemocratshavesuggested thattheWallaseyconstituencybelinked atitswesternedgewithHoylakeandMeols awardintheproposedHoylakeandNeston constituencyWerejectthisinlinewith asignificantdegreeoflocalopposition(eg IP009362)forthefollowingreasons
AC88 First inourviewthisproposalarisesfrom thesepartiesrsquolargerdisruptionoftheWirral constituenciescausedbytheirproposedresolution oftheMerseyBanksissueinadifferent waytoourrecommendationSecondwhile aroadlinksthewardsofHoylakeandMeols withMoretonWestandSaughallMassiethey areseparatedbylsquoawidegapofformerbrickfields andopengreenbeltcountrysidersquo(Councillor GeoffreyWattChesterpublichearing Day2p47)OnelocalcouncillorWendy Clements(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)spokeoffeelingtherealdifferencebetween thetwowardsAdditionallythewardsof WestKirbywouldbedividedbetweenthetwo constituenciessobreakinglocaltiesThere isalsolocaloppositiontosuchacourseof action(egIP009362andIP014333)Ultimately inourviewfollowingsuchacoursewould disruptthenorthndashsouthflowoftheproposed HoylakeandNestonconstituencythat hasreceivedsomuchsupport
AC89 Accordingly werecommendthattheconstituencies ofWallaseyandBirkenheadbeadopted aswehavesetoutTakenasawholeour recommendationsforWirralprovideinourview theoptimumfulfilmentofthecriteria
21 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
locally andalsoinrelationtoMerseyBanksand(as wenowdiscuss)Chesterandtheadjoiningproposed constituencyofWinsford
AC90 The initialproposalforaChesterconstituency resultedinasignificantbodyofobjections Theseappeartoustofallintotwocategories Firstandmostvociferouslyisthemovement ofthewardsofBroughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyintoaproposedWinsford constituencyThesignificanceofthisis thatthesewardscontainamongothersGuilden SuttonLittletonChristletonandEccleston ndashtheso‑calledlsquoChestervillagesrsquoThe secondcategoryofobjectionconcernstheinclusion oftheEllesmerePortwardofGrovesand WhitbyintheinitialproposalforChester
AC91 In relationtotheseissuesweheardfrom manyindividualsincludingStephenMosley (ChesterpublichearingDay2pp5ndash9)MP forCityofChesterandAndrewMiller(Chester publichearingDay2pp26ndash39)MP forEllesmerePortandNestonandwearevery gratefulfortheirrepresentationsandalternative proposalsthatwedealwithbelow
AC92 We notethatMrMosleyproposesthatthe wardofGrovesandWhitbyreturntoEllesmere PortandBoughtonHeathandVicarsCross toChesterHoweverinordertoachievethis heproposessplittingtheMickleTraffordward ForhispartMrMillergaveustwoproposals Oneofthesewouldsplitthesameward andtheotherwoulddividewardswithinthe cityofChesterWereturntothelatterproposal atparagraphAC106MoreoverMr Millerrsquosproposalsaremoreexpansiveandwould divideWirralandinparticularthetownof HeswallbetweentwoconstituenciesOverallwithin thesub‑regionhisproposalswouldalsolink threeconstituencieswithGreaterManchester asdotheLabourPartyrsquos
AC93 Residents ofHeswallareweweretoldirritated andconfusedbythepresentdivisionof theirtown(ChesterpublichearingDay1p 34)andwenotethattheLiberalDemocratsrsquoand theLabourPartyrsquosproposalsalsomaintainthis Furthermorewedonotregardthesuggestion ofhavingthreeconstituenciescrossing sub‑regionsassatisfactory
AC94 Returning tothetwoissuesfacingusin thisareawedealfirstwiththeGrovesandWhitby issueOnthefaceofitthisseemstobean EllesmerePortwardbutperhapsthisisnotas straightforwardasitmightatfirstappearIn particularwehaveinmindtheoralrepresentations ofMrRichardSoperChairmanof theEllesmerePortandNestonConservativeAssociation Hetoldusthathisimpressionwasthat therewasadegreeofambivalenceaboutthis wardbeingassociatedwitheitherChesteror EllesmerePortasinsomewaystheinhabitants considerthemselvestobeindependent ofboth(ChesterpublichearingDay 2pp65ndash69)
AC95 However bearingthisinmindevenifitcan besaidtobeatrulyEllesmerePortwardincorporating thiswardintoaChesterconstituency isnecessaryinourviewtofulfilthe criteriainrelationtotheMerseyBanksrecommendation andtheoverallareaTherefore followingtheinitialproposalswerecommend thattheGrovesandWhitbywardform partofaChesterconstituencyWenowturn totheothercategoryofoppositionthatfrom residentsoftheChestervillagestotheirinclusion intheinitialproposalforaWinsford constituency
AC96 We pausetonoteatthispointthatifweput toonesidetheoppositiontotheChestervillagesrsquo inclusioninaWinsfordconstituencythe constituencywouldbelargelysimilartothe existingEddisburyconstituencythus
WestNorth 22
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
fulfilling thecriterioninfavourofmaintainingthe statusquo
AC97 Developing theargumentsfurtherwehave beenurgedtotakenotethattheresidentsof theChestervillagesfeeltheyhavenothingincommon withadistantWinsfordandthattheyare inrealitypartofChestercity(CouncillorKeith BoardChesterpublichearingDay1pp 7ndash9)Itissaidthatoneargumentfortheirmovement thatistopreventthedivisionofwards coveringthecityofChesterisfallaciousas inrealitytheChestervillagewardstooarepart andparcelofChestersoasplitoccursin anyeventThoseopposedtotheinitialproposal alsoaskthequestionwhyshouldthe wardofGrovesandWhitbybepartofaChester constituencywhentheyarenot
AC98 Our ultimaterecommendationisnotintended todismisstheseobjectionsoutofhand Theyareplainlyheartfeltandhavebeenput forwardwithgreatconvictionHoweverasis alwaysthecasewemusthaveregardtoouroverall recommendationsforthesub‑regionand theguidancethatinfluencesthewayinwhich wecarryoutourassessment
AC99 A themerunningthroughmanyalternative proposalsisthatweshouldsplitaward orwardstoallowabetterresolutionofthe localissuesAsiswellknownoneoftheparticular difficultieswehavefacedinthisareais thesizeofthewardsandwerethesesmallerthen therewouldbegreaterflexibilityincombining themtocreateconstituenciesthatbest fulfilthecriteriaWehavesetoutourapproach totheissueofsplittingwardsinourOverview section
AC100 We havegivenconsiderationtotheissue ofsplittingwardsaroundChesteraswehave beenurgedandindoingsowehaveaddressed ourmindstotwoquestionsfirst thepurposeandresultofdoing
so andsecondtheanswertothequestion doexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances exist
AC101 Here thepurposewouldbetoavoidthemovement oftheChestervillagesawayfroma Chesterconstituencyandtheresultwouldallow aresolutiontotheMerseyBanksdetached wardsWehavemadeourrecommendation inrelationtothelatteratparagraphs AC66ndashAC71demonstratingthatit ispossibletoconstructaconstituencythatmeets thestatutorycriteriatherewithoutsplitting wardsThisleavestheresolutionofthe Chestervillagesissue
AC102 We mustconsiderwhethertheirmovement andoverallpreventingtheinclusion ofthewardsofBoughtonHeathand VicarsCrossandGowyinaWinsfordconstituency amounttoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesInordertoreacha conclusionwehavesoughttoidentifyanycommon factorsherethatinourviewhaveequal applicabilityelsewheresoastosuggestthe argumentforexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances mightnotbemadeoutIndoingso wenotethefollowing
AC103 Obviously butneverthelessimportantlyany constituencyhasitsdifferentpointssomefurther awayfromothersorfrommainurbandevelopments forexampleMalpasinthesouth‑western corneroftheexistingEddisburyconstituency Moreoversomeareasofaconstituency areofasimilarcharacterandsome arenotandmanyconstituenciescontainwards fromdifferenturbanareasHeretheinitial proposalwasforalargelyruralconstituency interconnectedbyagoodroadnetwork
AC104 Moreover wefeelthattheargumentisnot somuchaboutbeingpartofaWinsfordconstituency asbeingremovedfroma
23 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Chester‑centred oneHoweveritisrighttosaythere areanumberofothersmallruralvillagesthroughout thisconstituencywhicharealsosome distancefromWinsfordFurthermoreboth thewardswouldbecombinedwithothersfrom CheshireWestandChesterandonewardfrom CheshireEast
AC105 We acceptthatresidentsoftheChestervillages feelpartofChesteranditwassaidthatpublic transportlinksbetweenWinsfordandChester arepooraffectingaccessibilityandaccess forsometotheirMPWhileaccessibilityis acriterionwemaytakeintoaccountwedonot feelthatitissolimitedheretomakethisconstituency unsustainableAdditionallyitisnot forustospeculatehowanMPconductshis orherrepresentationofanelectoratebutmaking himselforherselfinaccessibletoanyproportion ofconstituentswouldseemtobeboth unwiseandunlikelyinourview
AC106 As mentionedaboveoneofAndrewMiller MPrsquosproposalsisthedivisionofthecity ofChesterTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals alsosuggestthisaswellastheexclusion oftheLedshamandWillastonwardfrom aunitedChesterconstituencyTheLiberalDemocrats proposethatLedshamandWillaston formpartoftheirEllesmerePortandNeston constituencyWenotethatStephenMosley MPsupportsthelinkingofthiswardto Chester(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 5ndash6)
AC107 There wererepresentationsagainstdividing theChestercitywards(MsAmeliaMcCourty ChesterpublichearingDay1p25and StephenMosleyMPChesterpublichearing Day2p9)andweconsiderthistobea farworsefulfilmentofthecriteriathantheinitial proposalfortheWinsfordconstituencyIt wouldalsodisrupttherecommendationsforMersey BanksandtheWirralconstituencies
AC108 Therefore allofthesefactorscombinedpersuade usthatexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances donotexisthereanditispossible toconstructaconstituencythatmeetsthe statutorycriteriawithoutsplittingwardsUltimately ourrecommendationdoesnotcutthe residentsoftheChestervillagesofffromtheir associationwiththecityofChesterortheir accesstoitsfacilitiesandamenitiesFurthermore makingthischangebetterfulfilscriteria inotherareas
AC109 Finally havingconsideredanumberofconvincing submissionsincludingthoseofthecurrent MPStephenOrsquoBrien(IP009626)we arepersuadedtoretaintheexistingnameWe alsonotethatCheshireEastCouncilsupports theretentionofthisname(CR003283) Thereforeratherthanusingthe nameWinsfordfortheconstituencyitwould bepreferablethatitshouldremainas EddisburyThisisparticularlysohavingregard tothefactthatthetownofWinsfordis locatedattheeasternpartofourrecommended constituency
AC110 Given allthatwehavesetoutaboveweare alsocontenttoaccepttheinitialproposalfor aChesterconstituencyincorporatingthemajority ofthecityofChesterandkeepingits centreinoneconstituency
WestNorth 24
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC111 We nowreturntotheknock‑oneffectsof ourrecommendationfortheMerseyBanksconstituency andinparticulartheeffectontheinitial proposalsfortheWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theinitialproposalforthisconstituency sawanumberofwardsaddedto theexistingHaltonconstituency11andtheDitton andHalewardsmovedtoMerseyBanksWe receivedanumberofrepresentationssetting outthehistoricallinksbetweenthesetwo wardsandWidnes(egIP006454)andfrom thelocalMPDerekTwigg(IP022944)As wehavealreadysetoutitisourrecommendation thattheDittonandHalewards bepartofaHalton‑centredconstituency asthisbestsatisfiesthecriterionof existingconstituencyboundaries
AC112 Heath wardwouldmovetoMerseyBanks ItisclosetoandlinkedwithFrodshamMoreover wealsorecommendthatHaltonView bepartofaWarringtonSouthconstituency ThiswassupportedbyCouncillorCharles Fifield(ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 69ndash70)buttherewasalsolimitedopposition tothis(egCR001047)onthebasis thatthewardcontainedalargeindustrialarea thatmightpresentaconflictofinterestasregards investmentforaWarringtonMPWedo notacceptthisasavalidreasonfornotmaking ourrecommendationastheMPwillno doubtrepresenttheinterestsofhisorherconstituency equallyasopposedtothoseofa particulartown
AC113 The Halton‑centredconstituencywouldtherefore bemadeupof18ofthe21HaltonBorough wardswithnonefromanotherborough Wenotethattheinitialproposalhad only16Haltonwardsandcontainedtwolocal authorities
AC114 In ordertoensurethattheelectoratehere fallswithin5oftheelectoralquotaitisnecessary toaddotherwardsWetaketheview thatmovingthewardsofNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheinitialproposalforWarrington SouthintotheWidnesandRuncorn constituencybestfulfilsthecriteriaThese formpartofRuncornarewellconnected totheremainderoftheconstituency andarebothHaltonBoroughwards thatundertheinitialproposalswouldhave beenseparatedfromthemajorityofothersuch wardsThiswassupportedbyMrIanClarke andMrsJanClarke(IP015261)whowrote thatundertheinitialproposalstheinhabitants ofthesewardswerebeingdisplaced toanlsquoalienrsquoconstituencyThusaccessibility localgovernmentboundariesand localtiesarebetterrespected
AC115 The initialproposalsincludedtheWarrington wardofPenkethandCuerdleyinaWidnes andRuncornconstituencyandwehavebeen madeawareofaconsensusthatthiswaswrong AsDerekTwiggMPputit(Chesterpublic hearingDay2p92)lsquohelliptherersquosnostrong communityofinterestbetweenWidnesand PenkethrsquoPaulHockley(IP005999)avicar residentintheareaforsome30yearswas butoneofmanyopponentsofthisMrAlbert Heyes(IP000008)setoutinhiswrittenrepresentation anumberofreasonswhyitwaswrong andwenotethelsquogreenbeltrsquodivisionbetween WidnesandPenketh(IP003251)
AC116 We feelabletorecognisetheseconcerns andrecommendthatthewardofPenketh andCuerdleyshouldnotbeincludedwithin aWidnesandRuncornconstituencybut ratherbepartofourrecommendedWarrington Southconstituency
11 Penketh andCuerdleyWindmillHillHaltonLeaandBeechwood
25 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC117 Having dealtwiththePenkethandCuerdley wardwenowmoveourattentionfurther eastwardsandtothetownofWarrington itselfwheretheelectorateoftheexisting WarringtonNorthconstituencyistoosmall andthatofWarringtonSouthtoolargeTherefore itisnecessarytotransferwardsbetween thetwo
AC118 The initialproposalsawthewardsofWhittle HallGreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankey SouthmovedfromWarringtonSouthto WarringtonNorthAlsoFairfieldandHowley andPoultonSouthwouldbemovedfrom WarringtonNorthtoWarringtonSouthWarrington Southwouldalsoincludethreewards DaresburyNortonNorthand NortonSouthfromtheexistingWeaver Valeconstituency
AC119 There hasbeenahighlevelofobjectionto theconsiderabledisruptiontheinitialproposal wouldcauseincludingfromthelocalMPs HelenJones(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp5ndash9)andDavidMowat(Liverpoolpublic hearingDay1pp36ndash40)
AC120 We havedealtwiththetwoNortonwards abovebysuggestingthattheyformpartof ourrecommendedWidnesandRuncornconstituency Theremainingissuesweneedto examinesurroundtheDaresburywardandthe optimumtransferofwardsbetweenWarrington NorthandSouthsoasbesttofulfil thecriteria
AC121 Helen JonesMPforWarringtonNorthprovided usbothorally(Liverpoolpublichearing Day1pp5ndash9)andinwriting(IP025095) withadetailedandhelpfulinsightinto theconnectionsbetweenWarringtonrsquoswards Wefoundherunderstandingofthecommunity mostusefulasdidothers(eg CR001915)
AC122 Among herdetailedrepresentationsshe pointsoutanumberoffactorsFirstthatPenketh haslinkswithSankeyandthattheinitial proposalwouldbreaklinksbetweenFairfield andHowleyandthelsquooldrsquoWarringtonwards (includingOrford)bymovingtheformerto thesouthShealsotoldusoftheOrfordPark projectwhichhasbeengrantedpound30 millionfortheneedsofthetowncentreSecond BewseyandWhitecrosshasstronglinks tothenorthofthetownbyvirtueofitsshopping areasschoolsandresidentsrsquoassociations Shefeltthattherewaslittlerealdifference betweenPoultonNorthandPoultonSouth Finallyshewasoftheviewthattheeastern wardsstandalonebutneverthelesswith closeconnectionsbetweenthem
AC123 Many otherrepresentationsalsotookthe viewthatthewardsofFairfieldandHowleyand PoultonSouthwereessentiallylsquonorthernrsquowards Wenotepetitionsfromhundredsoflocal residentsopposingthemoveoftheFairfield andHowleyandPoultonSouthwardsto WarringtonSouth(IP024412)BewseyandWhitecross hadbeenpartofaWarringtonNorth constituencyuntilthelastelectionwhenit wasmadepartofWarringtonSouthdespitethe factthatthenorthernpartofitreachesupto theM62motorway
AC124 David Mowat(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 1pp36ndash38)MPforWarringtonSouthoffered threealternativeoptionsbutrecognised thathislsquoCrsquooptionleastaffectedthesurrounding areawhichcommendsittousThis proposedthatonlytheBewseyandWhitecross ortheLatchfordEastwardmoveto thenorthImportantlyitrespectstheexisting positionandresultsinaverylowmovement ofelectorsTakingthisandallotherrepresentations intoaccountwenowsetoutour recommendations
WestNorth 26
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC125 First werecommendthatthewardof BewseyandWhitecrossbeaddedtoaWarrington NorthconstituencyWeconsideredthe inclusionofthetwoLatchfordwardsinits placebuttheseareseparatedfromthe northernpartofWarringtonbytheRiver Mersey
AC126 We replaceBewseyandWhitecrosswith thesmallerHaltonViewward(whilerecognising thiscreatesanorphanward12)butwould stillneedtoincreaseelectornumbersinWarrington SouthInordertoachievethiswe recommendthatthethreewardsofWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth remaininaWarringtonSouthconstituency ratherthanmovingtoWarringtonNorth astheywouldundertheinitialproposalBy placingPenkethandCuerdleyandWhittleHall GreatSankeyNorthandGreatSankeySouth inWarringtonSouthwealsobetterrespect theexistingconstituencyboundary
AC127 We recognisethatthisconfigurationmay causecommentduetoissuesofaccessibility causedbytheinclusionofthePenketh andCuerdleywardwithinourrecommended WarringtonSouthconstituencyIt isarguedthattheManchesterShipCanalandRiver MerseycreateabarrierdetachingWarringtonrsquos easternandsouthernwardsfrom theWhittleHallandGreatSankeywards
AC128 Once againwearecompelledtoseekthe lsquoleastworstrsquooptionWehavelookedatusing thenorthernmostofthesethreewardsWhittle HallinsteadofBewseyandWhitecrossto beincludedinaWarringtonNorthconstituency butbytheslimmestofmarginsthe electorateprovedexcessive
AC129 We donotaccepttheassertionmadeby theLabourPartyinitssubmissiontothe
secondary consultation(p35CR004908)that ourrecommendationwouldbelsquojustasunsatisfactoryrsquo astheinitialproposalforMersey BanksWerecognisethatitisundesirable tohaveadetachedwardbutinourview thetwoareincomparableWetaketheview thattodrivethroughthecentreofWarrington toaccessonepartofWarringtonSouth fromanotherdoesnotfallintotheworstcategory ofsuchaproblemItalsoallowsfora betterfulfilmentofcriteriatothewestofWarrington andforthemovementoffarfewerelectors withinWarringtonBorough
AC130 Under ourrecommendationWarringtonNorth wouldremainthesameastheexistingconstituency savefortheadditionoftheBewsey andWhitecrosswardthusbestrespecting apreviousconstituencyboundary
AC131 As aresultofourrecommendationsWarrington Boroughwouldhaveonlytwoconstituencies withinitasopposedtothreeunder theinitialproposalsthusbetterrespecting localgovernmentboundariesWe notethatourrecommendationforWarrington Northisthesameasthatproposedby theWarringtonLiberalDemocratsalthoughthis grouprsquosproposalforWarringtonSouthisvery different(IP015176)
AC132 It wassuggestedbytheLabourPartythat theeasternwardofLymmcurrentlyandas partoftheinitialproposalspartoftheWarrington Southconstituencybemovedtoadjust electoralnumbersandformpartoftheAltrincham andSaleWestconstituency(withinGreater Manchester)Werejectthisproposal
AC133 In ourviewthereisnoneedtomakesuch afar‑reachingchangetothatconstituency andtheconfigurationoftheconstituencies withinthewesternpartof
12 lsquoOrphanrsquo ward(s)referstoaclearminorityofwards(usuallyjustoneward)fromonelocalauthorityinaconstituencywherethe overwhelmingmajorityofwardsarefromanotherlocalauthority
27 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Greater Manchestercanbeachievedwithoutresorting tothecreationofanothercross‑county boundaryconstituencyKeepingtheWarrington wardstogetherhasreceivedunanimous supportfromlocalpeopleandtheir representatives
AC134 Finally werecommendthattheHaltonBorough wardofDaresburymovesoutoftheproposed WarringtonSouthconstituencyThis isnecessaryinordertobalancenumbersfor WarringtonSouthandminimisechangeelsewhere andwerecommendthatitmovesinto theproposedNorthwichconstituencyWeaccept thatthiswouldincreasethenumberoflocal authoritiesintheconstituencytothreewhich isadisadvantageandonlyalsquoneckrsquoallows accesstothiswardfromtheremainderof theconstituencyNonethelessitispossibleto enterthewardbycrossingovertheM56from thesouthandalargepartofthewardisrural asistherestoftheconstituencyCheshire EastCouncil(CouncillorSteveWilkinson ChesterpublichearingDay2pp 48ndash49)supportedsuchachange
AC135 As regardstheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forWarringtontheconstituencyforthe northofthetownwouldbelargelysimilarto ourrecommendationsWenotethatittooplaces theBewseyandWhitecrossandPoulton SouthwardsinaWarringtonNorthconstituency HoweverthewardofPenkethand CuerdleyisnotreturnedtoaWarringtonconstituency InsteadaWidnesandWarrington Westconstituencywouldbecreated Thecounter‑proposalwouldalso divideWarringtonbetweenfourseparate constituencies
AC136 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesPenkethandCuerdleybeingincluded asanorphanwardinaproposedHalton constituencyandkeepsBewseyand
Whitecross inthesouthofthetownintheWarrington Southconstituency
AC137 For thesereasonsneitherpartyrsquosproposal commendsitselftousandwetherefore recommendtheWarringtonNorthand WarringtonSouthconstituenciesassetout above
AC138 We movenowtotheNorthwichconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt incorporatesmanywardsfromtheexistingTatton constituencyandsorespectsexistingconstituency boundariesItwouldalsocontaintwo furtherNorthwichwardstothewest(Northwich WestandAbbey)andtheAlderley wardtotheeastTherehavebeenrepresentations abouttheAlderleywardbeingremoved fromaMacclesfieldconstituencybutwe notethatawardcontainingAlderleyEdgeand NetherAlderleyisalreadypartoftheexisting TattonconstituencyInadditionthe twoWilmslowwardswouldbemoved bytheinitialproposaltotheMacclesfield constituency
AC139 One representation(IP001046)spokeof alsquonaturalassociationrsquobetweenNorthwichand KnutsfordThepointwasalsomade(Councillor GarethAndersonChesterpublichearing Day2p98)thatitwouldbeamistaketo placetwostrongtownsofNorthwichandWinsford inoneconstituencyastheLabourParty proposes
AC140 There havebeensomeobjectionstotheinitial proposalforNorthwichbasedmainlyona perceptionofdifferentsocio‑economicneedswithin theinitialproposalsandtheopinionthatthe AlderleywardlooksmoretoMacclesfieldWe taketheviewthatneverthelessthisisawell‑balanced constituencythathasexcellentroad linksthroughoutandmaintainsthenumber oflocalauthoritiesattwo
WestNorth 28
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC141 Cheshire EastCouncilcontextualisedthe constituencybysuggestingthatCheshireis madeupfrommarkettownssurroundedbyrural hinterlandandwefindmuchtocommendthis viewToamendthewardsundertheinitialproposal byaddingthewardofDaresburydoes notaffectlocaltiesoranyotherofthecriteria tosuchanextentastoleadustoreconsider doingsoparticularlywhenweconsider ourrecommendationselsewhereand theneedtomeettheelectoralquotafor eachconstituency
AC142 We havereceivedalargenumberofrepresentations howeverinrelationtothename ofthisconstituencyTheyaresufficientto causeustorecommendthatthenameshould remainasTattonAgainwenotethatCheshire EastCouncil(CR003283)supports this
AC143 We nowexaminetheinitialproposalsfor constituenciesinrelationtowhichitappears tousthefewestobjectionshavebeenreceived TheseareCongletonandCreweandNantwich Thishasnotpreventedusfromgiving fullconsiderationastohowwelltheseconstituencies fulfilthecriteriaHoweverwedo feelthatastheyrespectlocaltiesexistingconstituency andlocalgovernmentboundariesto aconsiderabledegreeweareabletorecommend theinitialproposalsWenotethatthe ConservativeandLabourpartiesandthetwo respectiveMPsFionaBruce(IP007285)and EdwardTimpson(IP011849)alsodoso
AC144 Under theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals whileCreweandNantwichwould remainthesameCongletonwouldbedisrupted withCongletontownplacedinaMacclesfield constituencyandthetownsofAlsager MiddlewichandSandbachinaNorthwich andSandbachconstituencyFurthermore thewardsofBrokenCrossand
Prestbury andTytheringtonwouldberemovedfrom theMacclesfieldconstituencyWedonotsee thisasasatisfactoryapproachoronejustified infulfillingthecriteriaoverall
AC145 Finally weconsidertheinitialproposalfor theMacclesfieldconstituencyThecurrentMP DavidRutley(ChesterpublichearingDay2 pp52ndash59)wascontentwiththefactthatmuch ofitwouldremainthesamealthoughwenote thatitwouldextendnorth‑westtoincludethe twoWilmslowwardswehavejustreferredto Someobjectionswerereceivedinthisrespect butnotinlargenumbers
AC146 We regrettheimpactonthevillagesin thesouth‑westoftheareathathasbeenvoiced TheseincludeEatonHenbury(IP020119) LowerWithingtonMartonandSiddington whichweweretoldlookmoretoMacclesfield thanNorthwichbutwouldbeincluded withintheNorthwichconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsHoweverthesuggestion tosplittheAlderleywardinorderto resolvethisissue(DavidRutleyMPChesterpublic hearingDay2p58andIP025371)isunacceptable inourviewNoexceptionalandcompelling circumstancesexisttojustifyit
AC147 Additionally thereisafarmoresignificant objectiontotheinitialproposalforMacclesfield namelythatitwouldresultintheremoval ofPoyntonfromtheconstituencyInstead thiswardwouldformpartofacross‑county boundaryconstituencytogetherwith amajorityofStockportwardsinaHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWeaddressthis issueindetailatparagraphAC266andlook heresolelyatthecounter‑proposalofusing thewardofBollingtonandDisleyinstead
AC148 In supportofthatcaseitwaspointedout thatDisleyisequallyclosetoHazelGroveand thattherearebetterroadandraillinksfrom DisleytoHazelGroveNodoubtthatis
29 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
the caseHoweverthevillageofDisleyisonly onepartofthewardItislocatedatthe northernmosttipofthewardThewardextends downtoBollingtonontheoutskirtsof MacclesfieldAgaingiventhelevelofobjection wehavevisitedthisareaandgivenvery carefulthoughtastoanyalternatives
AC149 Simply putwedonotacceptthatusingthe BollingtonandDisleywardwouldpresenta betterfulfilmentofthecriteriaThiswardhasa muchmoreruralaspecttoitthanPoyntonas wellasverydifferenttopographyAlsosignificantly inourviewitextendstoofarsouth downtowardsMacclesfieldtofulfilpositively thecriterionofspecialgeographicalfeatures WenotetherepresentationsofDisleyParish Council(IP020512)BollingtonTownCouncil (CR001342)HigherHurdsfieldParishCouncil (IP019714)andPottShrigleyParishCouncil (IP021542)whichallsupporttheinclusion ofthewardwithMacclesfield
AC150 The sharedboundaryabuttingthetownof MacclesfieldindicatesthatthewardofBollington andDisleyisingeographicaltermsa betterfitwithMacclesfieldthanthewardofPoynton IncontrasttothewardofBollingtonand DisleyPoyntonisacompactwardlyingclose toHazelGrove
AC151 The alternativeproposalsfortheNorthwich constituencywouldeitherunderaLiberal DemocratproposaldivideMacclesfieldor underaLabourPartyproposalincludeBollington andDisleyinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester DavidRutleyMP(Chesterpublichearing Day2p55)madeitcleartousthattodo sowouldgenerateasmuchoppositionasthe initialproposalregardingPoyntonandwe agree
AC152 Therefore notingtheexcellentroadlinks betweenWilmslowandbothBollington
and Macclesfieldwefeelabletorecommendthis MacclesfieldconstituencyMoreovergiventhe levelofrepresentationsinrespectoftheinitial proposalforthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency atPoyntonweturnourattentionnext totheinitialproposalsfortheGreaterManchester sub‑region
AC153 We recognisethatthereisadegreeof changeinherentinourrecommendationsconstrained aswehavebeenbythefactorswe havealreadymentionedInsummary
a the externalboundariesoftheCheshireand theWirralsub‑regionareonlycrossed inoneplace
b a totaloftwoexistingconstituencieswithin CheshireandtheWirralwouldbeunchanged
c three constituencieswouldberetainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d there wouldbenocross‑riverdetachedwards inMerseyBanks
e eight constituenciesarewhollycontainedwithin onelocalauthorityand
f as awholetherecommendedconstituencies aremorecompliantwiththe Rule5criteria
Greater Manchester
AC154 There arecurrently27constituencieswithin GreaterManchesterAsstatedatparagraph 26oftheinitialproposalsiftheexternal boundariesofGreaterManchesterare respectedthenthesub‑regionwouldbeallocated 255constituenciesTheconclusionof theCommissionwastocrosstheboundaryin twoplacesinordertoallocateatotalof26constituencies toGreaterManchestertwoofwhich includedwardsfromoutsidethe
WestNorth 30
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
sub‑region Thiswouldresultinthelossofone constituencywithinGreaterManchesterAlthough thatreductionisnotsignificantnumerically itdoescauseconsiderabledisruption totheexistingconstituencies
AC155 Virtually allrepresentationsincludingthose fromthemajorpoliticalpartiesacceptedthat itwasnecessarytocrosstheboundaryofGreater Manchesterinordertoachieveconstituencies thatfallwithin5oftheelectoral quotawhileavoidingsplittingwards
AC156 Adlington ParishCouncil(IP010542)suggested thattheelectorateofGreaterManchester atjustover195milliondidenable26 constituenciestobecreatedwithinthesub‑region withanaverageelectorateof75307 Whileintheorythisiscorrectnumerically theoutcomecannotbeachievedsatisfactorily giventhesizeofwardswithinGreater ManchesterThatisevidencedbythefact thatnocounter‑proposalhasbeenproduced whichsuccessfullyallocates26 constituencieswhollywithinGreater Manchester
AC157 We entirelyacceptthatitisnecessaryand appropriatetoincludeoneormorecross‑county boundaryconstituenciesin thesub‑regioninordertoproducea satisfactoryarrangement
AC158 In theinitialproposalsthereweretwoconstituencies crossingtheexternalboundaryof GreaterManchesterintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelyOnewasaconstituencyconsisting ofwardsfromthenorthernpartof Rochdalecombinedwithsevenwardsfromthe boroughofRossendaleinLancashirethis includedthetownsofBacupandpartof RawtenstallThesecondcross‑countyboundary constituencywasthatofHazelGrove whichincludedtheCheshireEastward ofPoynton
AC159 We startbynotingthattherewasalmost universalobjectiontocertainoftheconstituencies thatmadeuptheinitialproposals Threeparticularcomplaintsstandout sinceallthemajorpoliticalpartiesaswellas numerousindividualsandorganisationstook acommonstandinmakingobjectionsThe threewere
a the proposedconstituencyofLeigh
b the reconfigurationoftheconstituencieswithin Salfordincludingtheeliminationof anyconstituencybearingthenameSalford and
c the exclusionofthewardofStPeterrsquosfrom theproposedAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency
AC160 All threemajorpoliticalpartiesopposedthe initialproposalsforLeighTherewasstrongopposition bothbywayoforalrepresentationat thepublichearingsandbywayofwrittenrepresentation tothebreak‑upofLeighInparticular acampaignwasmountedtolsquoKeepLeigh inLeighrsquoasampleofwhichistherepresentation fromMrJohnBostock(IP002613) Howeveritwasnotsimplytheextent oftheoppositionthatwastellingbut ratherthestrengthoftheargument
AC161 First theproposedconstituencyposeda problemofaccessibilityTheinitialproposalsincluded twowardsIrlamandCadisheadwhich areinpracticaltermsphysicallyseparated fromtheremainderoftheproposedLeigh constituencyThewardsareboundedbythe ManchesterShipCanaltothesouthandanarea ofraisedpeatboglandcalledChatMossto thenorthThegeographyoftheareameansthat thereareextremelypoorroadlinksandthere arenorailorotherlinksacrossitfromthetwo wardstoLeighThetravellinksruneasttoBarton andEccles
31 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC162 Second theproposedconstituencywould meanthatlocalauthoritylinkswerebroken Theexistingconstituencyiswhollywithin WiganBoroughUndertheinitialproposals theconstituencywouldconsistofonly fourWiganwardsbutwithfivewardsfrom SalfordNonethelessitisintendedthatitshould bearthenameLeighAddedtothatisthe factthattheWesthoughtonconstituencyunder theinitialproposalswouldhavefiveWigan wardscomparedwiththreeBoltonwards Aswaspointedoutatthepublichearings byAndyBurnhamtheMPforLeighlsquoWesthoughton doesnotdescribetheWesthoughton constituencyandLeighdoesnot describetheproposedLeighconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p47)
AC163 Third theeffectoftheradicalchangeto theexistingconstituencyundertheinitialproposals resultedinLeighbeingdividedbetween threedifferentconstituenciesndashMakerfield WesthoughtonandLeighAll representationsagreedthatthiswas unsatisfactory
AC164 Fourth thedivisionofLeighwouldmean thatlocaltieswouldbebrokenNumerous exampleswerecitedtosupportthis pointonesuchillustrationwasthefactthat LeighTownHallLeighLibraryandLeigh ParishChurchwouldnotbewithinthe proposedLeighconstituencybut insteadwouldbeplacedintheWesthoughton constituency
AC165 The finalpointmadewasthattheexisting constituencyofLeighwasnumericallycompliant withthestatutoryelectoraterangeand thustherewasnoneedtochangeitThelast pointcanonlybereliedupontotheextentthat otherconstituenciesofasuitablesizecanbe configuredwithinGreaterManchester
so astoresultintheretentionoftheexisting constituency
AC166 All ofthemajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals aswellasanumberofother individualcounter‑proposalswerefounded ontheexistingconstituencyofLeigh beingretained
AC167 In relationtoSalfordtheconcernsabout theconstituencieswithinSalfordCitywere summarisedinthewrittenrepresentationsof CouncillorIainLindley(IP019707)(whoalsospoke atthepublichearings)Theinitialproposals removedallreferencestotheCityofSalford fromconstituencynamesdividedthehistoric CityofSalfordacrossanumberofconstituencies andleftthetownsofIrlamandCadishead outonalimb
AC168 This wasexpandeduponatthepublichearings byCouncillorDaveLancaster(Chairof EcclesandWorsleyConstituencyLabourParty) (ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 54ndash56)HazelBlears(theMPforSalfordand Eccles)(ManchesterpublichearingDay1pp 49ndash52)BarbaraKeeley(theMPforWorsleyand EcclesSouth)(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp72ndash76)andverymanyothersTheopposition totheinitialproposalswasexemplified bytherepresentationsobjectingto theproposalsforSalford(foranexamplesee IP002967)Therewasalsoacampaigncalled lsquoSaveourSalfordrsquofoundedbyMs VictoriaConnettwhomadealivelyrepresentation atthepublichearingemphasising thecommunityties(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp76ndash78)
AC169 Salford isacityIthasbeenanadministrative centreformanyyearsUntiltheprevious boundaryreviewwasimplementedSalford hadthreeconstituenciesUnderexisting arrangementsithastwoTheinitialproposals woulddivideSalfordrsquosParliamentary
WestNorth 32
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
representation acrossfourdifferentconstituencies withonlyoneofthose(Swinton) whollyinSalfordUndertheinitialproposals 11ofthe20electoralwardsthatmake upSalfordwouldbeplacedinconstituencies inManchesterorWiganNumerous individualsandpoliticalpartymembers acrosstheentirespectrumregardedthis asunsatisfactory
AC170 Furthermore therewouldbenoconstituency bearingthenameSalford
AC171 There wasoppositiontotheproposednew ManchesterCentralconstituencywhichwould containfourSalfordwardsincludingIrwell RiversideandOrdsallSalfordRoyalHospital thecathedralandtheSalfordShopping CityprecinctwhichareallinOrdsallform partoftheheartofSalfordAsaresultthe centreofSalfordwouldformpartofaconstituency whichwouldbecombinedwithwards fromtheCityofManchestercalledManchester CentralwithoutrecognitionofSalford Thesamepointwasmadeinrelationto SalfordUniversitywhichisintheIrwellRiverside wardTheUniversityputforwardawell‑argued submissionastowhytheCityofSalford shouldretainitsownParliamentaryrepresentation (IP015417)Therehasbeenlarge‑scale regenerationofSalfordQuayslocated intheOrdsallwardincludingTheLowry andMediaCityUKThishasaddedto theresidentsrsquostrongsenseofidentityandtheir desiretoberepresentedbyanMPforSalford ratherthanbeingpartofacentralManchester constituency
AC172 Again therewasstrongcross‑partysupport forthenotionofkeepingaSalfordandEccles constituency(withsomeslightvarianceby theConservativePartyandothers)Individuals spokeatthepublichearingwithadegree ofpassionaboutthesenseofidentity
of thosewholiveinSalfordThiswouldbe underminedbythestepofexcisingaParliamentary constituencythathadaSalfordidentity AnunderlyingthemevoicedbyCouncillor Lancasteratthepublichearingswas thatitwasSalfordthatsustainedthelossof aconstituencyduringthepreviousboundaryreview andthatitwasinequitablethatSalfordshould havetoundergothedisturbanceyetagain especiallyastheelectorateinSalfordwas increasingratherthancontracting(Manchester publichearingDay1p55)
AC173 We shouldaddthatinrelationtotheconstituencies withinSalfordtherewassupport fortheinitialproposalswhichcreateda constituencyofSwintonUnsurprisinglythatsupport camefromtheelectorswhoresidedin Swinton
AC174 In similarfashiontoLeighthepointwasmade thattheexistingconstituenciesofbothSalford andEcclesandWorsleyandEcclesSouth werenumericallycompliantwiththestatutory electoraterangeandthustherewasno needtochangeeitherofthem
AC175 Turning nexttotheTamesidewardofSt Peterrsquosagainallthemainpoliticalpartiesas wellasothersagreedthatthewardofSt Peterrsquosshouldbeincludedwithintheconstituency ofAshton‑under‑Lyneinsteadof DentonasundertheinitialproposalsDavidHeyes theMPfortheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne constituencyobservedatthepublichearing thatStPeterrsquoswasthecoreareaandtown centreofAshton‑under‑Lynetheexclusion ofthewardwasastarkexampleof alocaltiebeingbrokenresultinginanlsquoincoherent constituencyrsquo(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1p70)Heexpandedupon thisaspectinhiswrittenrepresentation (IP021498)
33 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC176 The variousotherrepresentationsdiffered inthemannerinwhichtheproblemidentified shouldbesolvedbutallagreedthatthere wasaproblemintheinitialproposalsWe regardedthefactthattherewassuchunanimous objectionbaseduponvalidgrounds asareasonforconcludingthattheinitial proposalfortheexclusionofthewardof StPeterrsquosfromtheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency waserroneous
AC177 There wasconsensusamongtherepresentations thattheconstituenciesofLeigh andSalfordwereunacceptableaswas theplacementofthewardofStPeterrsquosThe unanimouslevelofobjectiondictatedto alargeextentourapproachtotheinitial proposals
AC178 In additiontherewasasubstantialbodyof representationsraisingobjectionstoandconcerns aboutaconsiderablenumberofother constituenciesorwardsasincludedinthe initialproposalsforGreaterManchesterIt isnotnecessarytorefertoallofthematthis stagebutwementionafewoftheconstituencies thatgaverisetoparticularissues orconcerns
AC179 Inevitably thetwoconstituenciesthatcrossed thesub‑regionintoLancashireandCheshire respectivelygaverisetoaconsiderable bodyofobjectionTheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallintheinitialproposals provedunpopularinparticulartherewas strongoppositionfromindividualelectorsliving inRawtenstallSimilarlytheinclusionofPoynton withintheStockportconstituencyofHazel Grovegaverisetoaverysubstantialbody ofobjection
AC180 Other proposedconstituencieswithinGreater Manchesterundertheinitialproposalsalso gaverisetooppositionTherewas
objection totheproposedMiddletonconstituency whichresultedinthedivisionofHeywood Itwasquestionedwhetherthetwowards ofDidsburyshouldbetransferredtotheproposed Wythenshaweconstituencywhenthere existedarecognisablephysicaldivisioncreated bytheRiverMerseyandanareaofgreenbelt aswellastheM60motorwayTherewas hostilitytothedivisionofthetownsorcommunities ofChaddertonHorwichandRoyton TherewasobjectiontothewardofAshton uponMerseybeingincludedwiththeproposed StretfordandUrmstonconstituency
AC181 The responsestotheinitialproposalswere bynomeansallofanegativenatureItisappropriate torecordthattherewasstrongsupport foraconsiderablenumberoftheconstituencies setoutintheinitialproposals
AC182 However asaresultofconsideringtheoral representationsatthepublichearingsandthe writtenrepresentationsmadeduringtheinitial andsecondaryconsultationperiodswehave concludedthattheinitialproposalsputforward bytheCommissionwerenotacceptable andrequiredsubstantialrevision
AC183 The mannerinwhichtheconstituenciesare madeupistoaverylargeextentdictatedby thepointorpointsatwhichtheexternalboundary ofGreaterManchesterisbreachedIf theexternalboundaryofGreaterManchesteris crossedatdifferentplacesfromthatsetoutin theinitialproposalsthenthiswillaltertheconstituencies toasignificantextentnotonlyin GreaterManchesterbutintheNorthWestasa wholeespeciallyinLancashireandCheshire
AC184 Accordingly theissueastowhetherthecrossing oftheGreaterManchestersub‑regionshould occurinamannerdifferingfromthatsuggested bytheCommissionhastobeanswered byreferencetotwobroadcriteria
WestNorth 34
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]leadtoabetterallocation oftheconstituencieswithinGreater Manchester
b Does theadoptionof[a]differentcrossing point[s]resultinabetterorworse makeupoftheconstituenciesoutside theGreaterManchestersub‑region
AC185 In ordertoascertainwhetherornottheconstituencies couldbereconfiguredinamoresatisfactory mannerwestartedbyexaminingwhether thecounter‑proposalsputforwardbythe majorpoliticalpartiesprovidedthesolution Forthereasonssetoutbelowweconcluded thatnoneofthecounter‑proposalsadvanced bytherespectivepartiesprovidedacomplete answerOntheonehandeachofthem containedelementsthatweconsideredto beasatisfactoryresolutioninrelationtospecific constituenciesorwardsOntheotherhand therespectivecounter‑proposalscontained aspectswhichweregardedasunsatisfactory orwithsomeuneaseWeset outbelowourreasonforrejectingtherespective counter‑proposalsfromthemajorpolitical parties
AC186 AmajordistinguishingfeatureoftheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposalisthatitdoes notprovideforanywardfromCheshireEast beingincludedwithinacross‑countyboundary ManchesterconstituencyInsteadtheLiberal Democratsproposethatthereshouldbe asingleManchesterndashLancashirecrossing
AC187 The LiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalincludes severaladvantagesovertheinitialproposals Mostnotablytheyproposethattheexisting constituenciesofLeighMakerfieldManchester GortonManchesterWithingtonRochdale andHeywoodandMiddletonwouldbe retained
AC188 Although aspectsofthecounter‑proposal werepreferablefourfeaturesledus torejecttheircounter‑proposal
AC189 Our primaryconcernisthefactthattheproposal involvesthesplittingofaStockportward SteppingHillPartofthewardwouldbeincluded inCheadleconstituencyandpartinHazel GroveThepolicyoftheCommissiononthe splittingofwardsissetoutintheGuideand isreferredtoinourOverviewsectionWe donotregardtheproposaltosplittheward ofSteppingHillassatisfyingthelsquoexceptional andcompellingrsquotestInourviewthere isasatisfactorywayinwhichtheconstituencies ofGreaterManchestercanbeconfigured withouttheneedtosplitaward
AC190 Second thecounter‑proposalinvolvesa StretfordandUrmstonconstituencythatincludes thetwoSalfordwardsofIrlamandCadishead ThewardsareseparatedfromtheStretford andUrmstonconstituencybytheManchester ShipCanalThisphysicalbarrierisof significanceinthisareabecausethereisnoroad linkoverthecanalwithinthetwowardsManchester CityCouncilinthewrittenrepresentation submittedtothesecondaryconsultation (CR004223)statesthattheM60Barton Bridgeisattheextremeedgeoftheward ofIrlamndashhoweverthebridgecannotbeaccessed fromtheward
AC191 As statedatparagraph35oftheGuidethe aimistoavoidproducingconstituencieswith lsquodetachedpartsrsquoalthoughweentirelyaccept thatthiscannotalwaysbeachievedIn ourviewthephysicaldivisioninaproposedconstituency militatesagainsttheproposaladvanced bytheLiberalDemocrats
AC192 Third thecounter‑proposalinvolvesaManchesterndashLancashire cross‑countyboundaryconstituency whichtheLiberalDemocratsname RossendaleandRamsbottomItis
35 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
formed fromfourBuryNorthwards13combinedwith LancashirewardspresentlyintheRossendale andDarwenconstituencyThisresults inasomewhatawkwardlyshapedconstituency onaneasttowestaxisThe awkwardnessiscompoundedbythefact thattheprincipalroadswithintheproposed constituencytendtorunnorthto south
AC193 Fourth andperhapsamoresignificantfeature isthatthecounter‑proposaldoesnotsatisfactorily fitinwithconfigurationoftheconstituencies elsewherewithintheNorthWest InparticularitresultsintherebeingtwoLancashirendashMerseyside cross‑countyboundaryconstituencies Southport(whichincludesthreeSouth Ribblewards)andWestLancashire(which includesthreeSeftonwards)
AC194 The advantageoftheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalinhavingonlyone GreaterManchesterconstituencycrossingthe sub‑regionalboundaryisachievedattheexpense ofMerseysideAsnotedelsewherethere isobjectiontotheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals forMerseysidewhichwerejectforthe reasonssetoutintheMerseysidesectionof thisreport
AC195 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalfor GreaterManchesterhassubstantialattractions Mostnotablyitretainsasunchanged alargenumberofexistingconstituencies inWiganBoltonManchesterSalford andTraffordAsawholetheconstituencies withinGreaterManchesterhave agreaterrelationshipwiththeexistingconfiguration oftheconstituenciesandthusresult infarfewertiesbeingbroken
AC196 However inourviewthisisachievedatthe expenseofconstituenciesinneighbouringsub‑regions wherefarmorechangeresults
AC197 For reasonsalreadyoutlineditisnecessary tocrosstheexternalboundaryofthe GreaterManchestermetropolitanareabutour recommendationisthatthestepofcrossing thesub‑regionalboundarybekepttoa minimumasfaraspossibleWeregardthescheme wherebytheexternalboundaryofGreater Manchesteriscrossedinfiveseparatelocations asunsatisfactoryAdditionallywedid notregardthemannerinwhichtheconstituencies inLancashireandinCheshirewere configuredundertheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal asacceptable
AC198 We wouldaddthatinrelationtotheLancashirendashGreater ManchestercrossingtheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalenvisagesaBolton NorthEastconstituencythatincludeswards fromthreedifferentlocalauthoritiesthose ofBuryBlackburnandBoltonThisisafurther disadvantageinthatitdoesnotrespectlocal authorityboundariesanditbreaksexisting tiesNonethelessabreachingofthesub‑region northofBoltonhasconsiderablemerit assetoutbelow
AC199 Like thosefromtheotherpoliticalparties theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal hadmuchtocommenditAtthesame timeithadtwospecificdrawbacksThey canbesummarisedquitebriefly
AC200 FirsttheConservativePartyadoptedthe initialproposalfortheconstituencyofWythenshawe (whichitnamedManchesterWythenshawe) Thatperpetuatedthedisadvantage containedintheinitialproposalsof DidsburybeingseparatedfromManchesterWithington whenthereexistsaclearphysicaldivide oftheriverandthemotorway
AC201 Second underthecounter‑proposalthe wardofCliffordistobeincludedwithinthe proposedSalfordconstituencyAswas
13 Ramsbottom NorthManorTottingtonandElton
WestNorth 36
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
made clearbyCouncillorMikeCordingleyatthe publichearingthenameCliffordwarddoes notreallydefinewhatitisEssentiallyClifford istheheartofOldTrafford(Manchester publichearingDay1p79)Bytransferring thewardtoaSalfordconstituencythe coreofOldTraffordwouldberemovedThis wasequallyevidentfromthemanywrittenrepresentations receivedfromelectorswithinthe Cliffordwardandindeedthewrittenrepresentation bytheStretfordandUrmstonLabour PartyinconjunctionwithKateGreenMP (IP022558)Additionallyitwouldbeanorphan wardThisisfarfromdecisivebutitisa factorwehaveregardto
AC202 Moresignificantarethegeographicalobjections TheCliffordwardadjoinsthewardof OrdsallbutisseparatedbytheManchesterShip CanalTherewasdebateastowhetherornot therewasadirectroadlinkbetweenOrdsall andCliffordviatheTraffordRoadBridge Inanyeventthecommunicationlinksbetween theCliffordwardandOrdsallarelessthan idealFurthermorethepopulatedareaofboth OldTrafford(Cliffordward)andOrdsallare setbackawayfromtheShipCanalontheClifford sidebyasuccessionoftransportinfrastructure constructionsAsaresultthereare fewlinksbetweenthecommunities
AC203 ThetransferofthewardofCliffordtoform partoftheSalfordconstituencyresultsinlocal authorityboundariesbeingbrokenhasthe disadvantageofthewardbeingarguablyphysically separatefromtheremainderof theconstituencyandcauseslocaltiesto bebroken
AC204 Wehadthebenefitofaconsiderablenumber ofothercounter‑proposalsthatsoughtto offerabetterconfigurationfortheconstituencies ofGreaterManchesterWedonot intendtoaddressthemallbecauseone
provided asolutionwhichweregardedasthebest answertothevariousissuesinvolved
AC205 Thatcounter‑proposalwassubmittedby MrTerryLarganaresidentofBury(IP023386) andsupplementedinthesecondary consultationperiod(CR004440)We mustpaytributetohimandthankhimforhis effortsHiscounter‑proposaldoesnotanswer orprovidesolutionstoalltheobjections raisedItincorporatesmanyofthealternative suggestionsadvancedbyboththemajor politicalpartiesandindividualswhomade oralandwrittenrepresentationsIt makesuseofcertainoftheconstituenciesproposed bytheCommissionwhichwerenotobjected to
AC206 Asaresultwereachedthedecisionthatthe proposaladvancedbyMrLarganbestsatisfied thestatutoryrequirementsaswellas meetingmostbutbynomeansalloftheobjections thatweremadebythevariousindividuals andorganisationswhotookthetrouble toputinormakerepresentations
AC207 WenotethattheConservativePartyat paragraph729ofitssecondaryrepresentations (CR004791)observethatMr Larganrsquosproposalsarelsquointerestingandconstructive andmaywellformthebasisofthebest possiblecompromisepositionparticularlyin relationtoGreaterManchesterwherehelivesrsquo Weagree
AC208 Attheoutsetitshouldbenotedthatlike theinitialproposalswerecommendthatthere betwosub‑regionalboundarycrossingsOne isaGreaterManchesterndashCheshireEastcrossing bytheinclusionofthewardofPoynton withintheHazelGroveconstituencyas intheinitialproposalsTheothercrossingis betweenGreaterManchesterandLancashireat BoltonNorthWesetoutourreasonsformaking thatrecommendationbelow
37 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC209 Describingthelayoutoftheconstituencies ismosteasilydonebyreferencefirst tothewesternpartofGreaterManchester(comprising theboroughsofBoltonBuryTrafford andWiganandtheCityofSalford)and secondtotheeasternpart(comprisingthe CityofManchesterandtheboroughsofOldham RochdaleTamesideandStockport)
AC210 Under ourrecommendationstheexisting constituenciesofWiganLeighandMakerfield wouldremainunchangedTheretention ofallthreeconstituencieswasstrongly supportedbyallthreemajorpoliticalparties InadditionthereunitingofLeighsatisfies theverystrongobjectionsraisedconcerning itsdivisionasdescribedearlier
AC211 In additionwerecommendthatthetwo constituenciesofSalfordandEcclesandWorsley andEcclesSouthalsoberetainedasthey existatpresentThatrecommendationmeets theobjectionsraisedbythemanyresidents ofSalfordwhojustifiablydeprecatedthe disruptiontotheconstituenciesSalfordcontinues tohavetwowholeconstituencieswithin itsboundariesAsatpresenttwoSalfordwards wouldcontinuetobeincludedwithinthe predominantlyManchesterconstituencyBlackley andBroughtonThosetwowardsareBroughton andKersalandweseenoreasonfor changingthenameofthatconstituency
AC212 This meansthatinthewesternpartofGreater Manchesteratotaloffiveoftheexisting constituenciesremainunchanged
AC213 Under ourrecommendationsthegreatest changeinthewesternpartofGreaterManchester wouldoccurwithintheBoroughof BoltonAtthepublichearingsanumberofindividual speakersspokeinsupportoftheinitial proposalsforBoltonTheseallocatedtwowhole constituenciestotheborough(BoltonNorth andBoltonSouth)Theremainingwards
within BoltonBoroughwouldbedetachedwith thewardofBradshawbeingincluded inaBuryconstituencyandthebalance beingincludedintheproposedWesthoughton constituency
AC214 Our recommendationdepartsfromthatof theinitialproposalsWewouldwishtoemphasise thatinexaminingtheallocationofconstituencies wehavehadregardnotmerelyto theobjectionstotheinitialproposalsbutalso thosecontributionsfromthepublicthatsupported theCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsparticularly thoseinrelationtothetwoproposed Boltonconstituencies(Manchesterpublic hearingDay2pp35ndash40)Nonethelessthe deficienciesthathavebeenidentifiedelsewhere throughouttheGreaterManchestersub‑region ledustoconcludethattheallocation ofthewardswithinBoltonassetout intheinitialproposalsshouldbevaried
AC215 We startwiththeBoltonSouthEastconstituency whichwouldremainunchangedexcept fortheadditionofoneadditionalBolton wardBreightmetThisconstituencycorresponds totheBoltonSouthEastconstituency setoutintheinitialproposals(as BoltonSouth)Itwasalsosupportedbythe LabourPartyinitscounter‑proposalandthe MPforBoltonSouthEastYasminQureshi(IP014404) Insupportofthisproposedconstituency itwaspointedoutthattherewerestrong localtiesbetweentheBreightmetwardand theneighbouringLittleLeverandDarcyLever wardTherewerecounter‑proposalsthatdiffered marginallyinthewardstobeincludedwithin theconstituencybutoveralltheproposed constituencydidnotgiveriseto anycontroversy
AC216 Again ourBoltonWestconstituencyisas itexistsatpresentsubjecttotheadditionof onewardHalliwelltakenfromtheexisting
WestNorth 38
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Bolton NorthEastconstituencyAtthelastboundary reviewtheWiganwardofAthertonwas addedtotheBoltonWestconstituencyand thisremainsthepositionThecompositionof theconstituencyhastheadvantageof unitingboththeHorwichwardsand Westhoughton
AC217 Considerable oppositionwasexpressedconcerning theinitialproposalswhichinvolvedsplitting HorwichThiswasexemplifiedbytherepresentations ofMrJohnWalshonbehalfofthe ConservativePartywhopointedoutatthepublic hearingsthatundertheinitialproposalslsquoThe coreofthetowncentrewouldbeinHorwich andBlackrodinoneconstituency[the proposedWesthoughton]thetownhallon theothersideoftheroadwouldbeinhellipthe proposedBoltonNorthconstituencyrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p94)This divisionwouldbeavoidedunderourrecommendations Thisconstituencyisthesame asthatinboththeLabourPartyrsquosandtheLiberal Democratsrsquocounter‑proposals
AC218 The substantialchangeoccursinthearea formingthenorthernpartofBoltonWepropose across‑countyboundaryconstituencybetween GreaterManchesterandLancashireto thenorthofBoltonFivewardsfromtheexisting BoltonNorthEastconstituencyaretobe included14withsevenwardsoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarweninaconstituencywhich wehavenamedBoltonNorthandDarwen Thisisavariationtothecounter‑proposal putforwardbytheLabourPartythedifference beingthatthewardofEastRuralisincluded insteadoftheBurywardofTottington asproposedbytheLabourParty
AC219 We recognisethatthereismoorlandbetween DarwenandthenorthernpartofBolton Thetwoareasthougharelinkedby
the A666trunkroadAdditionallyassetoutinthe writtenrepresentationoftheRossendaleand DarwenConservativeAssociation(IP017219) therearepublictransportlinksbetween DarwenandBoltonbothbytrainandby busThatrepresentationacceptedthatthecreation ofaconstituencywhichjoinedDarwenwith partsoftheBoltonNorthconstituencywould takeaccountoftheeconomicandsocialcoherence ofthecommunitiesAlthoughBolton Northincludesurbanareasaccordingto therepresentationoftheDarwenConservative AssociationthewardsofAstleyBridge BradshawandBromleyCrossarepartially ruralandhavemuchincommonwiththe Darwenwardsincludedwithinourrecommended constituency
AC220 Anadditionalfactorthathasinfluencedus inarrivingatourrecommendationisthefact thattherehasbeensomeoppositiontothe creationoftheDarwenandHaslingdenconstituency assetoutintheinitialproposalsincluding thatfromtheRossendaleandDarwen ConservativeAssociation(IP017219)and fromHyndburnBoroughCouncil(IP020509) Bywayofobjectionitissaidthat itisimpossibletocrossfromonepartof theconstituency(Darwen)totheother(Haslingden) withoutleavingtheconstituencyIt wasemphasisedthatthetransportlinksareorientated northndashsouthtowardsManchester
AC221 In ourproposedconstituencythewardto theimmediatenorthFernhurstwouldnotbe includedinthecross‑countyboundaryconstituency butratherwithintheconstituencyof BlackburnItwasarguedthatitshouldbeincluded withinaDarwenconstituencysinceitforms partofanareaknownasLowerDarwenHowever thereisanotionaldivisionbetweenDarwen andLowerDarwencreatedbytheM65 Whilethereissupportforthewardof
14 Astley BridgeBradshawBromleyCrossCromptonandTongewiththeHaulgh
39 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Fernhurst beingkeptwithDarwenwe considerthatthemotorwaydoesforma recognisableandjustifiedborderoftheproposed constituency
AC222 In reachingourconclusionwehavehadregard tothefactthattherewasrelativelylittleopposition tothecreationofacross‑sub‑regional boundaryconstituencyatthispointAs alreadynotedtherewasonesignificantcounter‑proposal whichinvolvedtheinclusionof sixwardsfromLancashireinacross‑countyboundary constituencywithGreaterManchester namelythatoftheLabourParty
AC223 As aresultthegeneralconceptasenvisaged byourrecommendationshasreceived publicexposureDespitethattheobjections tothecreationofaconstituencyinvolving wardsfrombothGreaterManchesterand LancashirehavebeenmutedForexample BlackburnwithDarwenCouncilsubmitted awrittenrepresentation(IP022948) whichsupportedtheinitialproposals Howeveritmadenocommentwhatsoever ontheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal duringthesecondaryconsultationperiod Thiswasnotthecaseinmanyotherareas ofGreaterManchesterwherefierceopposition wasexpressedtoparticularfeaturesof anumberofcounter‑proposalsputforwardby therespectivemajorpoliticalparties
AC224 AcceptanceofaBoltonNorthandDarwen constituencywasnotuniversalArguments againsttheconfigurationwerecontained inthewrittenrepresentationofMr AndrewTealeinthesecondaryconsultationperiod (CR001811)MrStephenWhittakerinhis secondaryrepresentation(CR003566)endorses theargumentbyreferencetoaquotefrom MrTealersquoswebforumwhichsetoutsimilar contentionstohissecondaryrepresentation MrTealemakesthepointthat
the proposedconstituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen consistsoffourpartsandincludestwoseparate townsHecontendsthatthetownsdonot fittogetherinthesameconstituencyAdditionally hesuggeststhattheBurywardofTottington shouldnotbeincludedasitisanadjunct tothetownofBuryThatlastobjectiondoes notariseunderourrecommendationssince thewardofTottingtonisnotincludedinour proposedBoltonNorthandDarwenconstituency
AC225 We recognisethatthereissomemeritin hisremainingargumentbutitshouldbeemphasised thatasdiscussedelsewherenotevery constituencycanconsistofasinglehomogeneous electorateOnoccasionsconstituencies havetobeformedfromtwoseparate townsorcommunitiesIfasisthecase itisacceptedthattherehastobeacross‑county boundaryconstituencybetweenGreater ManchesterandLancashireitisinevitable thatexistingtieswillbebrokenIndeed MrLewisBastoninhiswrittenrepresentation containingadetailedcounter‑proposal (IP019266)acknowledgedthatthegeographical positionofDarwenwasinconvenient fromthepointofviewofformingconstituencies andthattheeasiestoptionwas topairitwithnorthBolton
AC226 Itisrighttorecordthattherewassome supportfortheretentionoftheexistingRossendale andDarwenconstituencywhichimpliedly opposesourproposedrecommendation Butnospecificcasewasadvanced inthesecondaryrepresentationsas towhyitwouldbewrongtocreatesuchacross‑county boundaryconstituencyasthatwhich wepropose
AC227 In ourviewtheadoptionofacrossingpoint intoLancashirethatdiffersfromthatsetout intheinitialproposalsultimatelyleadsto
WestNorth 40
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a betterallocationoftheconstituencieswithinthe westernpartofGreaterManchesterwhilealso beingcompatiblewithasatisfactoryconfiguration fortheconstituenciesintheLancashire sub‑regionTherebythetestsetoutat paragraphAC184ismet
AC228 Our recommendedBuryNorthconstituency consistsofthewardsasrecommended bytheCommissionbuttakingout thewardofBradshaw(addedtotheexisting constituencyundertheinitialproposals) andreplacingitwiththewardofUnsworth fromBurySouth
AC229 BradshawisaBoltonwardDespitethisthere wasnostrongoppositiontoitbeingincluded withinaBuryconstituencyIndeedthe MPforBuryNorthDavidNuttallputanattractive caseforBradshawbeingincludedin across‑countyboundaryconstituency(IP021394) eventhoughitwouldconstitutean orphanwardHoweverourrecommendedBury Northconstituencyconsistsentirelyof Burywardswhichweregardasbeing preferable
AC230 BurySouthwouldremainunchangedunder theinitialproposalsandthiswassupported bytheConservativePartyHoweverwith theremovalofthewardofUnsworthoneadditional wardneedstobeaddedinordertoensure numericalcomplianceItisproposedthat theManchesterwardofCrumpsall(presently containedintheBlackleyandBroughton constituency)beaddedInsomeways theSalfordwardofKersal(includedwithin theexistingBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency) mightbeconsideredamoreappropriate choiceHoweveraspointedoutbyMr TerryLarganthisisnotnumericallyfeasiblegiven thesizeoftheelectoralwardswithinManchester Additionallyitwouldhaveresultedin twoSalfordwardsbeingorphanwards
AC231 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTraffordwe recommendagainthatasfaraspossiblethe existingconstituenciesbemaintained
AC232 The existingStretfordandUrmstonconstituency wouldberetainedbutwiththetransfer ofthewardofBucklow‑StMartinstoAltrincham andSaleWestandtheadditionofone ManchesterwardWhalleyRangeTheconfiguration hastheadvantageofmaintainingthe wardofCliffordwithintheconstituencyIts transfertotheproposedSalfordconstituency undertheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal wasstronglyopposedasalready described
AC233 There werenosubstantiverepresentations relatingexclusivelytotheWhalley RangewardThismaywellbebecauseit didnotfeatureintheinitialproposalsoranyof themajorpoliticalpartiesrsquocounter‑proposals ThewardadjoinstheCliffordwardJohn LeechtheMPforManchesterWithingtonindicated thatthepeopleofWhalleyRangehave hadaratherrawdealsinceithasbeenlumped withotherconstituenciestomakeupthe electoralnumbers(Manchesterpublichearing Day1pp87ndash88)
AC234 WhalleyRangepreviouslyformedpartof ManchesterCentralFollowingthemostrecent boundaryreviewithasformedpartofthe ManchesterGortonconstituencyUnderour recommendationsitisbeingtransferredyet againHoweveritshouldbenotedthatunder theinitialproposalsthewardwastobe transferredinanyeventalbeittotheconstituency ofManchesterWithingtonPriorto itsinclusionwithinManchesterCentralWhalley RangeformedpartofStretfordasnoted byJohnLeechMP(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p87)Thereisnodistinctborder betweenthenorthernpartofWhalleyRange andthewardofCliffordAccordinglywe
41 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
conclude thatitwouldbeappropriatetoinclude thewardofWhalleyRangeintheconstituency albeitthatitwouldbeanorphan ward
AC235 Again theAltrinchamandSaleWestconstituency wouldbeasexistingwiththeaddition oftheBucklow‑StMartinswardfromStretford andUrmstoninordertoachievenumerical compliancePartoftheBucklow‑St MartinswardinfactincludesasmallpartofAshton uponMerseyTherewassomesupportfor thepartstobeunitedinoneconstituencyas theywouldunderourrecommendations
AC236 ThecommunicationlinksfromPartington inthewesternpartoftheBucklow‑St Martinswardtotheremainderof theproposedconstituencythroughAshtonupon MerseyareadequateTheconstituencywith theinclusionofthewardcanbejustifiedgeographically inthatitliesentirelytothesouth oftheRiverMersey
AC237 The LiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal advancedthecasethatBucklow‑St MartinsbeincludedwithintheAltrinchamand SaleconstituencyOtherthantherepresentation submittedonbehalfoftheAshton uponMerseyBranchoftheConservative Partyinthesecondaryconsultation period(CR004479)therewasno bodyofrepresentationsopposingthisproposal Thiswasincontrasttootherareaswithin GreaterManchesterEventhatrepresentation waslow‑keysincethepreference wastoincludetheTraffordwardof Brooklandswithintheconstituencyratherthan Bucklow‑StMartins
AC238 OurproposedAltrinchamandSaleWest constituencyhasanadvantageovertheconstituency containedintheinitialproposalsThe wardofAshtonuponMerseywillberetained withinourAltrinchamandSaleWest
constituency Therewasverystrongsupportfor theretentionofthewardwithintheconstituency Thiswasbasednotonlyuponthe maintenanceoftiesbutbecauseofthegeographical featuresThewardisseparatedfrom theStretfordandUrmstonconstituencyby theM60motorwayandbytheRiverMerseyAs aresultthelinksthathavedevelopedhavebeen betweenAshtonuponMerseythegreater SaleareatheadjoiningwardofSt MaryrsquosandonwardsthroughtoAltrincham
AC239 Theexistingcross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofWythenshaweandSaleEastwould beretainedTheconstituencyincludesthree TraffordBoroughwardsBrooklandsPriory andSaleMoor
AC240 Someoppositionwasexpressedatthepublic hearingstotheinclusionofthethreewards withinacross‑boroughboundaryconstituency mostnotablyfromCouncillorMichael Young(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1pp81ndash82)Nonethelessthewardsareincluded withintheexistingconstituencyTheabsence ofalterationtotheconstituencywouldinvolve fewerdisturbancestosubsistinglocalties Additionallyitwouldavoidtheneedforthe wardofSaleMoortobeincludedasanorphan wardintheproposedWythenshaweconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe constituencyofWythenshaweandSaleEast remainsunchangeditformedpartofthe LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC241 As withthewesternpartofGreaterManchester ourrecommendationsfortheeastern partofGreaterManchesterhavesought torespectlocalauthorityboundariesand tokeepexistingtiesasfaraspossibleAs aresultwehavekepttwoconstituencieswholly withintheboroughofRochdaleOldham andTamesideeachcontaintwowholeconstituencies withintheirrespectivelocal
WestNorth 42
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
authority boundaries(asatpresent)StockportBorough hasthreeconstituenciestwoofwhichconsist entirelyofStockportwards
AC242 Additionally underourrecommendations fouroftheexistingconstituencies withinManchesterandtheBorough ofRochdaleremainunchanged15
AC243 IntheeasternpartofGreaterManchester itisnotproposedthattherebeanycross‑county boundaryconstituencywithLancashire Ourrecommendationisthattheproposed RochdaleNorthandRawtenstallconstituency shouldnotbeimplementedInstead theexistingHeywoodandMiddletonand Rochdaleconstituenciesshouldberetained ThiscorrespondstotheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposal
AC244 Obviouslythisconfigurationmeetstheobjection oftheelectoratewithinRossendalewho expressedoppositiontobeingincludedwithin across‑countyboundaryRochdaleNorth andRawtenstallconstituencyasunderthe initialproposalsThisaspectoftheinitialproposals hadanumberofdisadvantagesas waspointedoutbytheMPforRossendaleand DarwenJakeBerry(IP017179)andothers TheRossendalewardstothenorthofthe proposedconstituencyhadtransportlinksto ManchesterthroughRamsbottomandBuryrather thantoRochdaleThewardsofHealeyand WhitworthandFacitandShawforthwhich lieimmediatelytothenorthofRochdalehave roadandcommunitylinkswithRochdaleThe remainderofthewardsthoughdonothave anysuchtieswithRochdale
AC245 FurthermoretheproposalresultedinRawtenstall beingsplitThepeopleofRossendale predominantlyhaveculturalandhistorical linkswithBuryandManchesterbutnot withRochdaleItwasacknowledgedthatif
Rossendale wastobeamalgamatedwithanypart ofGreaterManchesteritwouldmakemore sensetodosowithRamsbottomand Bury
AC246 NotonlydotheelectorateofRossendale opposethecreationofacross‑county boundaryconstituencybutitwasalsoopposed bythoseinRochdaleTheMPforRochdale SimonDanczukconfirmedinhiswritten representation(IP019403)thattheRochdale communitydidnotidentifywithareas ofRawtenstallandBacupHewentontomake thepointthatundertheinitialproposalsthe constituencyboundaryrunsdownthe middleofRochdalecuttingitinhalfThat disadvantageisavoidedunderour recommendations
AC247 Additionally atthepublichearingstrong supportwasexpressedforHeywood(which includedtheHopwoodHallward)beingkept together(ManchesterpublichearingDay 1p44andDay2pp18ndash20)Ourrecommendation avoidsthedisadvantageinherent intheinitialproposals(togetherwiththe ConservativeandLabourpartiesrsquorespective counter‑proposals)whichinvolved dividingHeywoodThisisachievedby retainingtheexistingHeywoodandMiddleton constituency
AC248 Underourrecommendationsthegreatest changeoccurstotheexistingconstituencies intheeasternpartofGreaterManchester Underthecurrentboundaryreview thereisareductionofoneParliamentary constituencytothesub‑regionof GreaterManchesterInverybroadtermstheloss ismostfeltintheeasternpartofGreaterManchester (OldhamStockportTameside)Previously ithadeightconstituenciesunder theinitialproposalsithadseven
15 Manchester WithingtonHeywoodandMiddletonRochdaleandWythenshaweandSaleEast
43 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Ashton‑under‑Lyne CheadleDentonHazelGrove andPoyntonOldhamandSaddleworthStalybridge andHydeandStockport)Intheprevious boundaryreviewthelossofaconstituency occurredinthewesternsideofGreater Manchester(essentiallyinSalford)Accordingly itisintheseboroughsthatthebreaking ofexistingtiesismostnoticeable
AC249 Themajordifferencebetweenourconstituencies andthosesetoutintheinitialproposals istheremovaloftheDentonconstituency (orasitexistsatpresentDentonand Reddish)Insteadweproposethattherebe adifferentconfigurationoftheexistingAshton‑under‑Lyne DentonandReddishOldham WestandRoytonandOldhamEastand SaddleworthconstituenciesUnsurprisingly asubstantialbodyofrepresentations weremadeopposingthebreaking uptheproposedDentonconstituency Inarrivingatourconclusionswe havesoughttohaveregardtotheconcernsunderlying thatoppositionbynotasfaraspossible splittingtownsorlsquotownshipsrsquoasthey wereappropriatelydescribedbyMichaelMeacher MPandDavidHeyesMP(Manchesterpublic hearingDay1pp59and69respectively) Thishasnotalwaysbeenfeasible
AC250 ExaminingOldhamBoroughfirstthishas anelectoratethatcansustaintwowholeconstituencies Undertheinitialproposalsthewards ofOldhamweresplitbetweenfourdifferent constituencies16Atthepublichearings thiswasdescribedbyMichaelMeacher theMPforOldhamWestandRoytonas resultinginOldhambeingcarvedupintofour constituencyareasleavingatownwithno naturalheartandwithitslocaltownshipdivided andsplitaway(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p59)
AC251 Under ourrecommendationsthisdissection wouldbeavoidedTheOldhamWest constituencyisformedfromthethreeChadderton wards17togetherwithColdhurstthe twoFailsworthwardsStMaryrsquosandthewards ofHollinwoodMedlockValeandWerneth ThelastthreewardsaresaidbyMr MeachertostretchrighttothecentreofOldham andtobelsquocrucialtotheracialandcommunity harmonyintheboroughrsquo(Manchester publichearingDay1p60)
AC252 Our recommendationsdifferfromtheexisting constituencyinthatthetwoRoytonwards aretransferredtoOldhamEastandSaddleworth andarereplacedbythetwoFailsworth wardstogetherwithStMaryrsquosUnder theinitialproposalsthethreeChadderton wardswereremovedfromtheexisting constituencyandweredividedbetween Ashton‑under‑LyneandMiddleton
AC253 As aresultitissaidthatChaddertonwould belsquodismemberedrsquotousetheChadderton HistoricalSocietyrsquosdescriptionin itswrittenrepresentation(IP007347)Chadderton hasinthepastbeenpartofdifferent constituenciesHoweverthepointis madebytheChaddertonHistoricalSocietythat thehistorictownshiphasalwaysremainedunited inaconstituencyOurrecommendationreflects theexistingtiesthatsubsistbykeeping thethreewardstogetherInthesameway therewassupportforFailsworthandHollinwood tobekepttogetherinanOldhamconstituency whichwouldnothavebeenthe caseundertheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal
AC254 Considerablylessdisruptionisrequiredin ordertoformanOldhamEastandSaddleworth constituencyTheward
16 Ashton‑under‑Lyne MiddletonOldhamandSaddleworthandRochdaleSouth17 Chadderton CentralChaddertonNorthandChaddertonSouth
WestNorth 44
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
of StMaryrsquosistransferredfromtheexistingconstituency toOldhamWestandreplacedbythe twoRoytonwardsThisconstituencycoincides withthatproposedbytheLabourParty initscounter‑proposalsTheproposalavoids dividingRoytonasoccurredundertheinitial proposalsItshouldbenotedthatnostrong oppositionwasexpressedinrelationtosuch aproposedconstituencyIndeedsupportwas expressedforthetwoparishesofShawand CromptonandSaddleworthtobeinthesame constituencyThisisachievedbyretaining theexistingconstituencywiththechanges describedabove
AC255 Turning nexttotheBoroughofTameside ourAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyis formedsoastoincludeonlyTamesidewards ItcomprisesthethreeAshtonwardsand StPeterrsquoswardtogetherwithAudenshawthe threeDentonwardsandDroylsdenEastThis coincideswiththeConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal Ithasanadvantageinthat itrestorestheStPeterrsquoswardtoanAshton‑under‑Lyne constituency
AC256 Alltherepresentationsthataddressedthis partofGreaterManchester(includingthose fromthethreemajorpoliticalparties)agreed thattheStPeterrsquoswardcontainedthetown centreandshouldbeincludedwithinaconstituency bearingthenameAshton‑under‑Lyne Anadditionalbenefitofourproposalisthat thetwoDentonwardsarekepttogetherwith AudenshawTherewasasubstantialcampaign entitledlsquoSupportDentonrsquowhichgave risetonumerousrepresentationsAn underlyingfeatureofthiscampaignwasthat therewerestrongcommunityinterestsbetween thethreeDentonwardsandAudenshaw Thiswasevidentforexamplefrom therepresentationsubmittedonbehalfof thelsquoSupportDentonrsquocampaign(IP023206)Our recommendationreflectsthedesireto
maintain existingcommunitytiesbykeepingthem togetheralbeitinadifferentconstituencyfrom thatproposedintheinitialproposals
AC257 It isacknowledgedthatthedrawbackof ourrecommendationisthatDroylsdenisdivided withDroylsdenEastformingpartofthe Ashton‑under‑Lyneconstituencyandtheward ofDroylsdenWestbeingtransferredtoour proposedManchesterCentralconstituency(described inparagraphAC278)
AC258 ThisresultsfromthefactthatTamesideBorough containsanelectoratethatexceedstwo wholeconstituenciesConsequentlyoneward hastobeincludedinacross‑boroughboundary constituencyIntheeasternpartofManchester itisinevitablethatoneormoreof thetownshipshastobedividedinordertoform numericallyacceptableconstituenciesDroylsden Westappearstoustobetheleastworst optioninthattherearereasonablecommunication linkswiththeadjoiningManchester CentralwardofAncoatsand Clayton
AC259 TheproposedStalybridgeandHydeconstituency consistsoftheexistingwardstogether withoneadditionalwardDukinfieldwhich hastieswithDukinfieldStalybridgeThis constituencyconsistswhollyofTamesidewards Theconstituencyisthesameasthatproposed bytheCommissionandissupportedby boththeConservativeandtheLabourparties intheirrespectivecounter‑proposalsOther representationsagreedthatthetransferof theDukinfieldwardmadesense
AC260 Anoveralladvantageofourrecommendation inrelationtotheboroughsof OldhamandTamesideisthatthethreecommunities ofRoytonChaddertonandFailsworth arenotdivided(althoughnotallinthe sameconstituenciesastheyareatpresent)as theywereundertheinitialproposaland
45 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
certain othercounter‑proposalsItisacknowledged thattheresultisthatDroylsdenis splitbyincludingDroylsdenWestwithintheManchester CentralconstituencyjustastheConservative Partydoesinitscounter‑proposal Therewassomeobjectiontothedivision ofDroylsdenbutnotsubstantial
AC261 Our recommendedStockportconstituency doesinvolveareconfigurationof thewardswithintheexistingconstituencyIt consistsentirelyofStockportwardsThe constituencycomprisestheexistingwardswith thelossofthewardofDavenportandCale GreenandtheadditionofthewardsofBredbury andWoodleyandReddishSouth
AC262 As indicatedourrecommendationswould includethewardofBredburyandWoodley (albeitdividedfromtheBredburyGreen andRomileywardinHazelGrove)This wouldavoidthewardofBredburyandWoodley beinganorphanwardintheDentonconstituency asundertheinitialproposalsThe BredburyGreenandRomileyward(intheexisting HazelGroveconstituency)wouldbesplit fromBredburyandWoodleywhichwasobjected tobyAndrewStunellMPinhisoralrepresentation atthepublichearing(Manchester publichearingDay1p63)Nonetheless weconsiderthatthisconfiguration wouldbepreferabletothe latterwardbeingincludedwithina Tamesideconstituency
AC263 Asaresultoftheadditionoftheward ofBredburyandWoodleythewardof DavenportandCaleGreenwouldbetransferred fromtheexistingconstituencytothe CheadleconstituencyThiscorrespondsto theCommissionrsquosinitialproposals
AC264 Ourrecommendationalsodiffersfromthe initialproposalsinthatonlyReddishSouthis addedtotheStockportconstituencyrather
than bothReddishwardsThewardofReddishNorth istransferredtotheManchesterGortonconstituency whichhasthedisadvantageofsplitting ReddishThiswasdescribedaslsquotheworst possibleoutcomersquointhewrittenrepresentation ofCouncillorAndrewVerdeille(IP021833) butnoreasonsweregivenforthatview ItshouldbenotedthatReddishNorthhasgood railandbuslinkstoGortonThecomposition ofourStockportconstituencycoincides withtheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal
AC265 ThechangerequiredtotheCheadleconstituency wouldbeminimalThewardofStepping HillwouldbetransferredtotheHazelGrove constituencyandthewardofDavenportand CaleGreenwouldbeaddedfromStockport Theresultofthischangemakesthe constituencycompliantnumericallyThe constituencyisassetoutintheinitialproposals ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheMPfor CheadleMarkHunteratthepublichearings(Manchester publichearingDay1p84)There wasadditionalsupportforthewardofStepping HilltoformpartoftheHazelGroveconstituency ratherthanformingpartof Cheadle
AC266 TurningnexttotheHazelGroveconstituency ourrecommendationdoesinvolvethe wardofPoyntonbeingaddedasundertheinitial proposalsTherehasbeenconsiderableopposition expressedtothewardofPoyntonbeing transferredfromtheMacclesfieldconstituency Inviewofthestrengthoffeelingexpressed onthisaspectoftheCommissionrsquosproposals weconsiderthatitisappropriateto setoutourjustificationforadoptingthe initialproposalfortheHazelGroveandPoynton constituency
AC267 The startingpointisthattherehastobe somewhereatwhichthereisoneormore
WestNorth 46
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
cross‑county boundaryconstituenciesWherever thereisgoingtobeacross‑countyboundary constituencythoseaffectedareunlikely tobesatisfiedandwillmountacampaign againsttheproposalThathasbeenthe caseinrelationtoPoynton
AC268 Agreatmanyoftherepresentationsopposing theinitialproposalforHazelGroveproceeded onthebasisthatthetransferofthe wardofPoyntontotheHazelGroveconstituency wasaprecursortoPoyntonbecoming partofStockportThatisnottheintention northedirecteffectAsacknowledged bytheMPforMacclesfieldDavid Rutleyitisimportanttoappreciatethat theinitialproposals(andindeedourrecommendations) onlyaffecttheParliamentary constituencies(Chesterpublichearing Day2p56)TheCommissionrsquosdecision doesnotaffectlocalauthorityboundaries Poyntonwillcontinuetoformpartof CheshireEastCouncilforlocalgovernmentpurposes Theelectoratewillbefullyentitledto makeappropriaterepresentationsinanyfuture reviewoflocalgovernmentboundariesjust astheydidpreviouslyasdescribedbySir NicholasWinterton(theformerMPforMacclesfield) atthepublichearings(Chesterpublic hearingDay2pp60ndash63)
AC269 Afactorrelieduponinoppositiontotheproposed constituencyisthatanMPwouldberepresenting some60000electorateinStockport Councilrsquosareaandjustunder12000of theelectorateinCheshireEastThatisnumerically correctHoweveralthoughregardis paidtolocalauthorityboundariesthereisnostipulation againstcreatingcross‑countyboundary constituencies
AC270 ThroughouttheNorthWestthereareinstances whereasinglewardwithinonelocalauthority areaisincludedwithinaconstituency
made upofwardsfromanotherlocalauthorityThese occurintheinitialproposalsandinallthe counter‑proposalsputforwardbythemajor politicalpartiesandothersThereisnoprohibition againstconstituenciesthatincludewhat arecolloquiallycalledlsquoorphanwardsrsquoWe acceptthattheyarelessthanidealbutthey areunavoidable
AC271 In manyofthewrittenrepresentationsit wasarguedthatPoyntonwasmarkedlydifferent fromtheremainderoftheHazelGrove constituencyspecificallyitwasarguedthat itwasdifferentinitsdemographicsndashsee therepresentationfromPoyntonLiberalDemocrats (IP005921)Thegroupingtogetherof populationsidentifiedaspartofagroupisnot oneofthestatutorycriteriaintheformation ofParliamentaryconstituenciesalthough maintenanceoflocaltiesisInanyevent itshouldbenotedthattheconstituencyof HazelGroveincludesnotonlythetownofHazel GrovebutalsothevillagesofHighLaneand MarpleaswellasMarpleBridgeandCompstall Thesesemi‑ruralareasarenotdissimilar incharactertoPoynton
AC272 Asmallandlesssignificantfeaturein relationtothewrittenrepresentationsobjecting totheinitialproposalconcerningPoynton wasthatmanyofthemstatedexpressly thattheyhadnothingincommonwith StockportParadoxicallyahighproportion ofthemprovidedStockportas theaddressfromwhichtheysenttheir representation
AC273 Poynton TownCouncilandotherssuggested thatinsteadofthewardofPoyntonbeing transferredtoHazelGrovetheadjoiningward ofBollingtonandDisleybetransferredThe argumentsagainstincludingthewardofBollington andDisleyinacross‑sub‑regionalboundary constituencyareconsideredin
47 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraph AC147inthecontextofconsideringour recommendationsforaMacclesfieldconstituency Wewillnotrepeatthemherebut theyarerelevanttoourreasoningforadopting theinclusionofthewardofPoyntonin preferencetothewardofBollingtonand Disley
AC274 We wouldemphasisethatnoteveryrepresentation opposedthewardofPoyntonbeing includedwithintheproposedHazelGrove andPoyntonconstituencyWhileweunderstand thestrongfeelingsgivingrisetothe objectionsfeltbytheresidentsofPoyntonwe recommendthatthewardofPoyntonbeincluded withinthisconstituencyAssetoutinthe initialproposalstheconstituencyshouldbe calledHazelGroveandPoynton
AC275 We turnnexttotheconstituencieswithin theCityofManchester
AC276 As alreadyindicatedinourrecommendations theexistingconstituencyof WythenshaweandSaleEastisretainedas istheexistingManchesterWithingtonconstituency BoththeLabourPartyandtheLiberal Democratsintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals supportedtheretentionofthesetwo existingconstituenciesThiswouldhavean advantageovertheinitialproposalswherethe wardsofDidsburyEastandDidsburyWestwere transferredfromManchesterWithingtonto aproposedWythenshaweconstituencyThere isarecognisablephysicaldivisionbetween Didsburyandtheareatothesouthrepresented bytheRiverMerseytogetherwithan areaofgreenbeltlandaswellastheM60motorway Thegeographicalfeaturesseparating DidsburyfromWythenshawewereemphasised bytheMPforManchesterWithington JohnLeech(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p88)
AC277 In ordertoaccommodatesufficientelectorate withintheTraffordconstituencyofStretford andUrmstonthewardofWhalleyRange istransferredfromManchesterGortonas setoutinparagraphAC232Theexistingconstituency ofManchesterGortonisretainedbut thereisaneedtomakeupthelossofWhalley RangenumericallyThisisachievedby includingthewardofReddishNorthfromthe existingDentonandReddishconstituencyIt isacknowledgedthatthisisfarfromidealIt splitsReddishItinvolvestheinclusionofanorphan wardfromStockportwithaManchesterconstituency Nonethelessthewardhasgoodcommunication linkswithGortonbothbyroadand railTheinclusionofthewardformedpartof theConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposalAlthough someoppositionwasexpressedtothis aspectoftheConservativePartyrsquosschemeno strongcasewasmadeout
AC278 Again alterationsarerequiredtotheexisting ManchesterCentralconstituencyThe changesarefarlessradicalthanundertheinitial proposalswhichinvolvedjoiningfourSalford wardswithfourManchesterwardsOur recommendationsmeanthattheexistingconstituency isretainedsubjecttothetransferof thetwowardsofMilesPlattingandNewtonHeath andMostontotheBlackleyandBroughton constituencyandmorecontentiously theinclusionoftheTamesideward ofDroylsdenWestTheinclusionoftheMoston wardintheBlackleyandBroughtonconstituency formedpartoftheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal AsthatproposalandTonyLloyd (theMPforManchesterCentral)pointout theMostonwardwasincludedwithintheManchester Blackleyconstituencyuntil2010(Manchester publichearingDay1p99)However werecognisethatourrecommendation involvesdividingDroylsdenEast andDroylsdenWestBalancedagainstthat isthefactthattheconstituencyisamuch
WestNorth 48
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
closer matchtotheexistingconstituencywhencompared withtheinitialproposals
AC279 The BlackleyandBroughtonconstituency gainsthetwowardsofMilesPlatting andNewtonHeathandMostonbutat thesametimelosesthewardofCrumpsallwhich isincludedwiththeproposedBurySouth constituencyAdistinctadvantageofthis configurationisthatthewardofCharlestown isretainedintheconstituencyUnder theinitialproposalsCharlestownwasincluded inthecross‑boroughboundaryconstituency ofMiddletonAtthepublichearings itwaspointedoutbyTonyLloydMPthat theboroughboundaryiscoterminouswiththe M60motorwayatthispointwiththeresultthat thewardofCharlestownhasfewornolinks withMiddletonortheotherwardsmakingup thatconstituency(Manchesterpublichearing Day1p99)
AC280 AscomparedwiththeremainderofGreater Manchestertherewererelativelyfewrepresentations fromtheelectorateintheCity ofManchester
AC281 Our recommendationsdoresultinManchester wardsbeingincludedinnineconstituencies Howeverinarrivingatthisoutcome wehaveinmindtheobjectionsraisedby ManchesterCityCouncilrsquosrepresentation(IP023278) totheinitialproposalsTheCouncilobjected tolocaltiesbeingbrokenbythecreation oftheManchesterCentralconstituency soastoincludefourwardsfromSalford theinclusionofthetwoDidsburywards inWythenshaweandtheinclusionofthe CharlestownwardinMiddletonThesedrawbacks totheinitialproposalshavebeen
addressed underourrecommendedconstituencies
AC282 In summarytheresultofourrecommendations isthat
a the externalboundaryofGreaterManchester isonlycrossedintwo locations
b a totalofnineexistingconstituencieswithin GreaterManchesterwouldbe unchanged18
c a totaloffiveconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward19
d four constituenciesareretainedasexisting subjecttothetransferofoneward outandthereplacementbyanother ward20
e nineteen constituenciesarewhollycontained withinoneborough(ascompared with14undertheinitialproposals) and
f as awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withtherequirementsofRule 5
AC283 WehaveretainedtheCommissionrsquosconcept thatthereshouldbeacross‑countyboundary constituencywithCheshireEastwith theinclusionofthewardofPoyntoninthe HazelGroveandPoyntonconstituencyHowever inthenorthernpartofGreaterManchester wehavenotadoptedtheproposedcross‑county boundaryconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstallUnderourrecommendation thecross‑countyboundary
18 Heywood andMiddletonLeighMakerfieldManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalfordandEcclesWiganWorsleyandEcclesSouth andWythenshaweandSaleEast
19 Altrincham andSaleWestBoltonSouthEastBoltonWestBuryNorthandStalybridgeandHyde20 Bury SouthCheadleManchesterGortonandReddishNorthandStretfordandUrmston
49 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency withLancashireisaBoltonNorthand Darwenconstituencywiththeinclusionofseven BlackburnwithDarwenwards
AC284 Thecreationofaconstituencycrossinginto Lancashireleadsusnexttoconsidertheinitial proposalsfortheLancashiresub‑regionand ourrecommendedconstituencies
Lancashire
AC285 Theinitialproposalsallocated14constituencies tothissub‑region(whichincludes thecountyofLancashireandtheunitary authoritiesofBlackburnwithDarwenand Blackpool)areductionoftwofromtheexisting arrangementHoweveritselectoralsize andgeographicalfeaturespreventedtheinclusion ofallwardswithin14constituenciesThe initialproposalsresolvedthisproblembycreating across‑sub‑regionalconstituencyofRochdale NorthandRawtenstall
AC286 Howeverforthereasonssetoutatparagraph AC218wehaverecommendedthatthere shouldbeacross‑countyboundaryconstituency notastheinitialproposalssuggested atRochdalebutinsteadlinkingwards fromthenorthoftheBoroughofBoltonwith thosefromtheDarwenareaoftheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenAccordingly atthispointwecontinueourconsideration oftheNorthWestbymovingfrom GreaterManchesterupintoLancashire
AC287 There arecurrently16constituenciesinthis sub‑regiononlyfourofwhich(RibbleValley RossendaleandDarwenSouthRibbleand WestLancashire)haveelectorateswithin5 oftheelectoralquotaTheelectoratesofthe remainingconstituenciesfallbelowthelower 5limit
AC288 Thesub‑regiontakesinabroadrangeof geographicalfeaturesincludingcoastalregions significanturban(aswellasrural)areas andinplacessomeseveretopographical featuresthatprovidenaturalboundaries Ithastwomotorwaysrunningnorthndashsouth inparticulartheM6whichrunsthe fulllengthofthecountywiththeM55offto thewestofPrestonandtheM65toitseastas wellastheM66whichrunsnorthfromManchester towardsBurnley
AC289 Asweconsidertheinitialproposalsweset outwhatweperceivetobethedifficultiesin theeastLancashirearea21 whichhaveaneffect notonlytherebutalsointheultimateconfiguration forthewestofthesub‑regionFirst itisfromthisareathataconstituencyisto belostandnaturallythiscausesamoreintensive probleminthelocality
AC290 SecondthethreelocalboroughsofBurnley PendleandHyndburncoverthetownsof BurnleyNelsonColneandBarnoldswickaswell asPadihamAccringtonClayton‑le‑MoorsRishton andOswaldtwistleDependingonthelocation oftheindividualororganisationthereis differingbutequallystrongoppositiontothe variousconfigurationsofconstituenciesproposed fortheseboroughs
AC291 Within thisoppositionsmaller‑scalerepresentations haveurgedustotakenoteofthe identityofparticularlocaltownsandoftheneed toavoidseparatingthewardsthattheycontain OneexampleofthisisAccringtonWe wereofferedagooddealofevidenceabout thelinksbetweenitswardsandweaddress thisparticularissueatparagraphsAC305ndashAC313 below
AC292 Third theinitialproposalswereperceived asdividingthetownofBurnley
21 Comprising theboroughsofBlackburnwithDarwenBurnleyHyndburnPendleandRossendale
WestNorth 50
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
and therehavebeenasignificantnumberofrepresentations opposingthisAswesetoutbelow wedonotfeelthattheinitialproposalsdid sufficientjusticeheretothecriteriarelatingto localtiesorexistingconstituencyandlocalgovernment boundariesTheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals (IP025315)alsoinvolveadegree ofdivisionofthetownthatifpossiblewe arekeentoavoidThisfeatureprovidesanadditional reasonastowhywefeeltheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsoveralldonotbestfulfil thecriteriaWedealfurtherwiththesecounter‑proposals below
AC293 Whatfollowstakesthesemattersintoaccount aswereconfiguretheinitialproposalfor theBurnleyNorthandNelsonBurnleySouth andAccringtonandDarwenandHaslingden constituenciesaswellasconsidering theeffectsofdoingsoontheinitial proposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency
AC294 Weshouldindicatethatsomeofourrecommendations fortheconstituencieswithineast Lancashireaccordwiththesuggestionsmade bytheConservativePartyinitscounter‑proposal (IP025314)andparticularlybyMr TerryLargan(IP023386)Wehavefoundthis areaoneofthemoredifficulttoresolvein theNorthWestandaregratefulforthesesubmissions
AC295 Asmentionedabove(paragraphsAC244ndash246) oneofthemorecontentiousinitial proposalswasforacross‑countyboundary constituencybetweentheLancashire BoroughofRossendaleandtheBorough ofRochdalewithinGreaterManchester ForthereasonssetoutintheGreater Manchestersection(atparagraphsAC218ndashAC227) wedonotagreewiththisproposal Insteadwerecommendthatthecrossover shouldoccurbetweenthenorth
of BoltonandBlackburnwithDarwenOfthepolitical partiestheConservativePartyandthe LiberalDemocratsproposeasinglecross‑county boundaryconstituencyinrelationtoGreater ManchesterwhereitabutsLancashire
AC296 Thecreationofthecross‑countyboundary constituencyofBoltonNorthandDarwen obviouslyaffectstheproposedDarwen andHaslingdenconstituencyanditsneighbours assetoutintheinitialproposalsIt isinevitablethatneithertheexistingconfiguration ofconstituenciesnortheconfiguration proposedbytheCommissioncanbe maintainedintheeastLancashireareagiventhe locationofourrecommendedcross‑countyconstituency Inorderbesttomeetthecriteriaof respectinglocalgovernmentboundariesandlocal tieswekepttwoobjectivesinmindThefirst wastokeeptogetherasmanyaspossibleof thePendleBoroughwardsthesecondwasto preventadivisionofthetownofBurnley
AC297 We acceptthataconsequenceofmeeting theseobjectiveswillbethedivisionbetween constituenciesofthewardsoftheBorough ofHyndburnItisuniversallyaccepted howeverthatitisnotpossibletokeep boththeBoroughofPendleandtheBorough ofHyndburnintactwithinasingleconstituency Moreoverweassessourrecommendation asbeingthelsquoleastworstrsquooption itbreaksfewestlocaltiesrespectslocal governmentboundariesandallowstheoptimum fulfilmentofourobjectiveofdividingthe townofBurnleyaslittleaspossible
AC298 ItappearsthattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposals forthisareaarepredicatedon allocatingtheHyndburnwardstooneconstituency butanumberofissuesmakethiscounter‑proposal unattractivetousFirstitwould put11PendlewardsintoaRibbleValleyconstituency calledClitheroeandColne
51 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
Second theproposalalsoincludesafurthercross‑sub‑regional constituencyina RossendaleandRamsbottomconstituency(which underourrecommendationsisunnecessary) Andfinallyitwouldalterthecomposition oftheotherconstituenciesintheeast Lancashirearea
AC299 Weagreewiththecommentsmadeinthe ConservativePartyrsquosrepresentationsinthesecondary consultation(CR004791paragraph335 p10)thatthelsquoleastworstrsquosolutionistodivide Hyndburnrsquoscommunitieswhichhavetheir ownidentitiesbetweendifferentconstituencies Wehaveattemptedtokeepthe townsofAccringtonandOswaldtwistletogether (evenifindifferentconstituencies)thus maintaininglocalties
AC300 Inourviewthereistrulynolsquorightanswerrsquo hereWenowsetoutourproposedalterations totheinitialproposalsfortheDarwen andHaslingdenRochdaleNorthandRawtenstall BurnleySouthandAccringtonand BurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituencies
AC301 In thisareainadditiontoourBoltonNorth andDarwencross‑countyboundaryconstituency werecommendthreeconstituencies BurnleyandAccringtonEastRossendale andOswaldtwistleandPendleWe explainthejustificationfortheirnamesandtheir componentwardsbelowBurnleyandAccrington EastandRossendaleandOswaldtwistle aresointerwoventhatwedealwith themnowtogether
AC302 Firstweproposethatsevenwardsofthe BoroughofBlackburnwithDarwenthatwere containedwithintheinitialproposalforthe DarwenandHaslingdenconstituency22
should beusedtoformthenortherlypartof ourproposedcross‑countyboundaryconstituency ofBoltonNorthandDarwenThis isdealtwithalsoinparagraphAC218
AC303 NextwerecommendthatthesevenRossendale Boroughwards23thatformpartof theCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenandHaslingden constituencyshouldbelinkedwiththe othersevenRossendaleBoroughwards24that formpartoftheCommissionrsquosproposedRochdale NorthandRawtenstallconstituencyto formasubstantialpartofourrecommendedRossendale andOswaldtwistleconstituencyThis movementbestrespectslocalgovernmentboundaries byplacingall14RossendaleBorough wardsinthesameconstituency
AC304 Howeverwerecognisethatatthispoint ourrecommendationbecomesmorecontroversial Inordertoensureanelectoratefor ourrecommendedconstituencyofBurnleyand AccringtonEastthatiswithintherequisiteelectorate rangetheinclusionofadditionalwards isnecessaryThisresultsinthedivisionof theHyndburnwardsandinparticularthosecentred onAccringtonThisisinevitablegivenour intentionofretainingallthePendlewardsin oneconstituency(whichwesupportbelowat paragraphAC318)
AC305 Thequestionthenarisesastotheprecise mannerinwhichweallocatethewardsthat aresaidtoconstituteAccringtonsoasbest toreflectthecriteriatowhichwemayhave regardWeheardevidence(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p3ndash11)onthistopicfroma localresidentMrMunsifDadandtwolocalcouncillors WendyDwyerandTimOrsquoKaneGraham JonesMPforHyndburn(IP007733)echoed manyoftheirremarksinawritten
22 Earcroft SudellEastRuralSunnyhurstMarshHouseWhitehallandNorthTurtonwithTockholes23 Worsley GoodshawCribdenLongholmeGreenfieldHelmshoreandEden24 Facit andShawforthGreenscloughHareholmeHealeyandWhitworthIrwellStacksteadsandWhitewell
WestNorth 52
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
submission Therewereinadditionanumberof moregeneralrepresentationsurgingusnotto dividethetown
AC306 Inthecourseoftheoralrepresentationsreferred tointheprecedingparagraphwewere toldthatthewardsofChurchSpringHilland Centralareperceivedasbeinginthewestof AccringtonwithBaxendenPeelBarnfieldand MilnshawmakinguptheeastBaxendenit wassaidlookstoitsnorthtotheBarnfieldand PeelwardsWeattempttorespectthelocal eastndashwesttiesasbestweareable
AC307 IftheLabourcounter‑proposalforaHyndburn andPadihamconstituencydidnotfind favourwithusCouncillorOrsquoKane(Prestonpublic hearingDay2p11)urgedusatleasttointerchange thewardsofCentralandBaxenden inordertopreservethedifferenteastwest identitiesofthetown
AC308 Weheardacontraryargumentinthisregard fromMrJohnWalshonbehalfoftheConservative Party(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p28)HearguedthattheBaxendenward shouldremaintiedtotheWorsleywardto itssouthastheonlywaytodrivefromWorsley toImmanuelisthroughBaxendenWhile itappearsthatthisistechnicallycorrectthe roadfromWorsleyseemsbarelytoenterthe BaxendenwardonitswaytoImmanuelTherefore inourviewandinspiteofthisargument inorderthebettertorespectlocalties wewouldmoveBaxendentoaBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyand CentraltotheRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituency
AC309 DoingsounitesCentralwiththeotherlsquowesternrsquo wardofChurchleavingonlySpringHill separatefromthesetwowardsSpringHillis partofAccringtoncentreandwefeelitshould alsobelinkedwiththefiveotherHyndburn wardsinourproposedBurnleyand
Accrington EastconstituencyInordertoachieve thiswewouldmovetheSpringHillward fromtheCommissionrsquosproposedDarwenand Haslingdenconstituencytoourrecommended BurnleyandAccringtonEast constituency
AC310 Mr WalshtoldusthatCentralwardincludes therailwaystationandshouldtherefore bepartofanAccringtonconstituency HoweverwealsoheardthatBarnfield representsthetowncentreintermsof shopping(PrestonpublichearingDay2pp 7ndash8)andgiventheeastndashwestdividethatwas persuasivelyarguedwedonotfeelthatputting theCentralwardintoaconstituencythat doesnotcontainthenamelsquoAccringtonrsquois inanyconflictwiththecriteria
AC311 We wouldalsomovethewardofClayton‑le‑Moors fromtheCommissionrsquosproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency intoourRossendaleandOswaldtwistle constituencyasithasgoodlinksto ChurchStOswaldrsquosandStAndrewrsquoswardsWe alsonotesupportfromJakeBerryMPforRossendale andDarwen(IP017179)forthemovement ofClayton‑le‑MoorswardHestated thatitisacommunitythatisseparatefrom Accringtonandthathasacloseassociation withChurchwardandthetownof Oswaldtwistle
AC312 We alsoproposethattheHyndburnward ofAlthambeincludedinourrecommended RossendaleandOswaldtwistleconstituency Weheardoralrepresentationsabout itscloselinkswiththeClayton‑le‑Moorsward (MrMilesParkinsonPrestonpublichearing Day2p23)
AC313 We recommendthatthisconstituencybe namedRossendaleandOswaldtwistleas areflectionoftheareascoveredbyit
53 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC314 In ourBurnleyandAccringtonEastconstituency wethenrecommendthattheAccrington wardsofBaxendenBarnfieldPeelMilnshaw HuncoatandSpringHillshouldbelinked withfourBurnleyBoroughwardsthatwere partoftheinitialproposalforaBurnleyNorth andNelsonconstituency25 andnineBurnley wardsthatwerepartoftheinitialproposal foraBurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency 26 AlsowewouldmovetheCliviger withWorsthornewardawayfromtheproposed BurnleySouthandAccringtonconstituency Wedealwiththisbelow(paragraph AC320)
AC315 Finally wereceivedsomeobjectionstoa linkbetweenAccringtonandDarwenWhilethe M65motorwaydoeslinkthemthereismoorland betweenandwerecognisethisOur recommendationresolvesanyissuehereThis thencompletesourrecommendedBurnley andAccringtonEastconstituencyWe recommendthisnameastheconstituencywould combinealltheBurnleyBoroughwardssave forthetworuralwardsofBriercliffeandCliviger withWorsthornewithmuchofthetown ofAccrington
AC316 While onthefaceofitproblematicinsome respectsdividingtheHyndburnwardsin thewaythatwehavedoesprovidegreaterfulfilment ofthecriteriainotherareasMostsignificantly aswehavealreadysetout(paragraph AC218)itallowsacross‑sub‑regional constituencyjoiningthenorthofBolton withDarwenWefeelthisdisruptslocalties theleastifoneconsidersthesub‑regionsof LancashireandGreaterManchesteroverallIn additionandaswegoontorecommendbelow thetownofBurnleycanbepreservedentirely inoneconstituencytheBarnoldswick
wards ofCravenCoatesandEarbycanbereturned toaPendleconstituencytheRibbleValley canincorporateitsruralwardsandFishwick canreturntoPreston
AC317 We notethatourrecommendationsin thisspecificareacoincidewiththoseofMr TerryLargansavefortheBaxendenandSpring HillwardsAswehaveindicatedwehave foundreachingarecommendationfortheeast Lancashireareaoneofourhardesttasksand appreciatethatourrecommendationswillnot satisfyeveryindividualororganisation
AC318 Having madearecommendationcentred ontheHyndburnwardsandAccrington wenowturntothewardsoftheBorough ofPendlePendleBoroughCouncilhas providedawrittensubmissionwithitsownproposals andhasurgedthatthelocalauthority bekepttogether(IP022550)The parishcouncilsofKelbrookandSough(IP010239) andLaneshawBridge(IP020573)echo thisAstheinitialproposalsstandthePendle Boroughwardsfeaturemainlyintheconstituency ofBurnleyNorthandNelsonOur recommendationisinrealitytheexistingconstituency plustwootherwardsAccordingly werecommendthattheexistingconstituency nameofPendlebeused
AC319 To beginwithwerecommendthatthePendle BoroughwardsofCravenCoatesandEarby (partoftheinitialproposalforaRibbleValley constituency)shouldremaintogetherwith alltheotherwardsfromPendleBoroughThis maintainscurrentboundariesWenotethat thereispublicsupportfortheirremovalfrom theproposedRibbleValleyconstituencyand thatmostindividualswereinfavourofthisincluding anindependentEarbytown
25 Queensgate DaneshousewithStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead26 Brunshaw CoalCloughwithDeerplayGannowGawthorpeHaptonwithParkRosegrovewithLowerhouseRosehillwith
Burnley WoodTrinityandWhittlefieldwithIghtenhill
WestNorth 54
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
councillor EdwardJohnson(Prestonpublichearing Day1p10)Furthermoreitassistsinensuring thattheRibbleValleyconstituencyiswithin 5oftheelectoralquota
AC320 Secondaswesetoutabove(paragraph AC314)weproposemovingtheBurnley BoroughwardsofQueensgateDaneshouse withStoneyholmeBankHallandLanehead southwardsoutoftheproposedBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituencyandinto ourrecommendedBurnleyandAccringtonEast constituencyTheyarecurrentlypartofthe Burnleyconstituencyandthisagainrespects thestatusquoGiventhedecreasein theelectoratefollowingthismovementitbecomes necessarytoincreasethenumberof electorswithinourrecommendedPendleconstituency InourviewmovingtheruralBurnley BoroughwardofClivigerwithWorsthorne intothePendleconstituencytogether withtheotherruralwardofBriercliffe(which wedonotagreeshouldformpartofaBurnley NorthandNelsonconstituency)wouldallow thecriteriatobebestfulfilled
AC321 We feelthatthisrecommendedPendleconstituency bestreflectsthelocaltiesandlocal governmentboundariesintheareaasit consistsofentirelyPendleBoroughwardsapart fromthetworuralBurnleyBoroughwards ofBriercliffeandClivigerwithWorsthorne Therearehoweverroadlinksfrom thesewardstootherpartsoftheconstituency andtogethertheyformanearlycomplete circleupthroughBoulsworthandround toHighamandPendlesidearoundamore urbanconcentrationtothecentreof Burnley
AC322 We notethattheConservativePartysupports thereasonsbehindthemovementofthe wardsfromtheBurnleyNorthandNelsonconstituency Furthermoreasitscounter‑
proposals pointoutthewardsofClivigerwithWorsthorne andBriercliffeareruralwardswhich haveinthepastbeenseparatedfromBurnley TheLiberalDemocratsandtheLabour Partyalsosupportthemovementof thesewards
AC323 We heardthattheadditionofthesetworural wardswassomethingthattheirresidentscould associatewith(PrestonpublichearingDay 2p15)Asonerepresentationputitlsquoitwould bemoresensiblejusttoaddacoupleof BurnleywardstoPendleandthenBurnleycould bemoreintactrsquo(IP001336)Thesewardsare ruralandfitinwelltheBurnley Expressnewspaper hasalsquoVillagesrsquopagewhichwehave beentoldincludesthevillagesofBriercliffe ClivigerWorsthorneandFence (CR001661)
AC324 Duetotherecommendedsubstantialreconfiguration oftheinitialproposalswithinBurnley andPendleandinordertokeepdisruption toaminimumandrespectthecriteria asbestwecanwewouldrecommendthat thewesternHyndburnBoroughwardsofOverton andNetherton(theso‑calledlsquoGreatHarwood wardsrsquowhichundertheinitialproposals wouldbeintheBurnleySouthandAccrington constituency)andRishton(underthe initialproposalspartoftheDarwenandHaslingden constituency)bejoinedwiththeRibble Valley
AC325 We haveconsideredwhetherotherlsquoperipheralrsquo wardsintheeastLancashireareacould beusedinsteadbuttheyaresointerlinked withouroverallrecommendationthat movingthemisundesirableWenotethatNigel EvansMPforRibbleValleyendorsedthe inclusionofthelsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(Preston hearingDay1p8andIP007912)also apetitionfromhundredsofGreatHarwood residentsrequestedinclusionin
55 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
a RibbleValleyratherthanaBurnleyconstituency (IP025612)
AC326 Therewereanumberofrepresentationsto keepColneseparatefromBurnleyandpartof Pendle(IP005015forexample)Underourrecommendations thetownsofColneandNelson arekeptdistinctfromBurnleyby theirinclusioninourrecommendedPendle constituency
AC327 We turnnowtotheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forBurnleyWenotethatitkeeps PendleBoroughtogethersaveforReedley wardwhichisinsteadincludedinaBurnley constituencythatismadeupofthreelocal authoritiesHoweverwetaketheviewthat theproposalsitmakesforAccringtonandRawtenstall presentcertaindifficultiesFirstthey arebasedonacross‑countyboundaryRossendale andRamsbottomconstituency(IP025331 p35)whichwedonotrecommend Suchaconstituencywouldcontain wardsfromtheGreaterManchesterBorough ofBuryandfromLancashiretheBorough ofBlackburnwithDarwenandtheBorough ofRossendalemakingatotalofthreelocal authorities
AC328 WenotethattheConservativePartyrsquoscounter‑proposal forthePendleconstituencymirrors ourrecommendationTheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalshoweverreflecttheLiberal Democratproposalinthattheyarepredicated onacross‑countyboundaryconstituency atRossendaleandRamsbottomthat wefeelisinappropriate
AC329 Turningnowtotheinitialproposalforthe Blackburnconstituencywefeelabletoendorse itasitinvolvestheminimalchangeof merelyaddingthewardofFernhursttotheexisting constituency(asdiscussedaboveat
paragraph AC221)Thisisanalterationthatcompletes aroundshapefortheconstituencywhich incorporatestheurbanwardsofthetown allofwhicharepartoftheBoroughof BlackburnwithDarwenTherehasbeenpopular supportfortheinclusionoftheFernhurst wardandBlackburnwithDarwen BoroughCouncilalsosupportsthisproposal (IP025031)
AC330 Theinitialproposalsjoinedtheruralwards ofBlackburnwithDarwenBoroughin aDarwenandHaslingdenconstituencyUltimately werecommendthatthereshouldbea cross‑countyboundaryconstituencyinthisarea (BoltonNorthandDarwen)whichwouldincorporate sevenBlackburnwithDarwenwards 27 Aswehavealreadymentionedourrecommendations foreastLancashireenableus toaddresscertainoftheadverseeffectsof theinitialproposalfortheRibbleValleyconstituency anditisonthisthatwenowfocus ourattention
AC331 Asignificantmatterofoppositioninthis areawasthattheso‑calledlsquoruralwardsrsquoof ChippingDerbyandThornleyDilworthAlston andHothersallandRibchesterwerenot includedintheRibbleValleyconstituencyunder theinitialproposalsWefeelthatthis proposalcannotbesustainedforthefollowing reasons
AC332 Many spokeoftheveryclosetiesbetween Chippingandotherwardsinthevalley (egNigelEvansMPPrestonpublichearing Day1p7)Insteadofbeingincludedin aRibbleValleyconstituencytheinitialproposals wouldseethesewardsincludedin theproposedLancasterconstituencyThis wouldmeanthatthenumberoflocalauthorities thatanMPwouldhavetodealwith insuchaconstituencywouldrisetofour
27 Earcroft EastRuralMarshHouseNorthTurtonwithTockholesSudellSunnyhurstandWhitehall
WestNorth 56
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
While weacceptthatthisisnotaninsurmountable problemhavingregardtothecriterion oflocalgovernmentboundariesweconsider thatsuchanumbershouldbeavoidedif atallpossible
AC333 Secondthereisaconsiderablebodyof publicopinionthatopposestheremovalofthese wardsfromaRibbleValley‑basedconstituency Thereasonsmaybesummarisedas followstheyhavelittleconnectionwithLancaster andinsteadlookeasttoClitheroethere isasignificantgeographicalbarriercreated bythelandscapebetweenthesewardsand Lancasterandthereisalong‑establishedhistory ofcommunitytiesbetweentheseandother RibbleValleywards
AC334 Anotherissuethatcontributestoouroverall rejectionofthisinitialproposalisthelive issuesurroundingtheproposedinclusionof theCityofPrestonwardofFishwickintheRibble ValleyconstituencyTheMPforPrestonMark Hendrickspokeagainstit(Prestonpublichearing Day1p43)Thereisalsonodoubtinour mindsthatallthepoliticalpartiesandmany individualsunanimouslyopposethiscourse ofactionForourpartweagreewiththem forthefollowingreasons
AC335 FishwickcurrentlypartofthePrestonconstituency isanurbanwardoftheCityofPreston Thismakesitsinclusioninsucharuralconstituency undesirablealthoughwerecognise itisproposedthatotherwardswitha lessthanruralflavourarealsoproposedforinclusion atthewesternendoftheRibbleValley constituency
AC336 Howeverthemostpersuasivefactorin ourmindsisthatthiswardisisolatedtoasignificant degreefromtherestoftheRibbleValley Havingvisitedtheareaitisclearthatthe wardrsquoseasternboundaryistheRiverRibbleand beyondthattheM6motorwaycutsitoff
further althoughweacceptthatthereisaroadlink fromPrestonintothevalley
AC337 Therefore havingregardtothegeographical issuesthatarerelevanttotheproposed constituency(especiallythebarriersbetween certainwardsandthecityofLancaster aswellasbetweenFishwickandthe restofthevalley)localtiesandlocalgovernment boundarieswerecommendthat theinitialproposalsforRibbleValleybe rejected
AC338 Aswementionedabove(paragraphAC324) wealsorecommendthatthethreeHyndburn wardsofRishtonNethertonandOverton beaddedtotheRibbleValleyconstituency Ourreasonsforthisareinterwoven withourrecommendationsineastLancashire Inanyeventwenotethattherehasbeen significantobjection(egIP013371)tothe twolsquoGreatHarwoodwardsrsquo(NethertonandOverton) beingexcludedfromtheRibbleValley andinthepasttheyhavebothbeenpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency
AC339 Whiletheirinclusionwouldaddanotherlocal authoritytotheconstituencywedonotfeel thatthiswouldbreaklocaltiesandwithother recommendationsthetotaloverallisreduced totwolocalauthoritiesImportantlyas wehavesetoutthisalsoallowsustoresolve theknottyissuesthatariseinHyndburnand providesabetterfulfilmentofthecriteria elsewhere
AC340 WenotethattheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposal isfortheeasternedgeoftheRibble Valleyconstituencytobeextendedbeyond thevalleytoinclude11PendleBoroughwards Aswesetoutearlier(paragraphsAC318ndashAC319) ourrecommendationkeepsPendle togetherFurthermoretheLabourParty proposalswouldresultintheChippingward beingexcludedfromanyRibbleValley
57 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency Wefeelthatthiswouldbreakthelocal tieswithinthevalleyandwerejectthisWe receivedawrittenrepresentationfromCouncillor SimonHore(Chippingward)whomade apersuasivecaseforChippingtoremainpart ofaRibbleValleyconstituency(IP015919also PrestonpublichearingDay1p31)
AC341 In ourviewtheLabourPartyrsquosproposals forRibbleValleydonotprovideasstrong afulfilmentofthecriteriaofgeographical considerationslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesasourrecommendations Accordinglywedonotfeelable toadoptthemeitherintheareaoftheRibble ValleyorineastLancashire
AC342 AtthispointwepausetoconsidertheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalsforthesub‑region overallandnotethatthesearefoundedon twocross‑countyboundaryconstituenciesRossendale andRamsbottomandBoltonNorth andDarwenInadditiontheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalsincludeafurtherthree cross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesbetween GreaterManchesterandCheshireFor thereasonssetoutaboveintheOverviewit isourassessmentthatthiswouldcausegreater disruptiontoexistingandestablishedties byvirtueofthebreakstolocalgovernment boundariesAsaresultwecannot adoptthepartyrsquosoverallproposalsforthis sub‑region
AC343 Wealsotakethisopportunitytomention theLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals forthesub‑regionTheyarefoundedon threecross‑sub‑regionalconstituenciesandagain aswesetoutinourOverviewwedonotfeel wecanrecommendthemTwooftheseconstituencies SouthportandWestLancashire involvethecombinationofSeftonand WestLancashirewardsBothariseasaresult oftheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposalnotto
separate thetwowardsthatcoverthetownof Formbywhichforreasonswesetoutatparagraphs AC399ndashAC402wedodivideThe thirdcross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyisat RossendaleandRamsbottomAsoutlinedin paragraphsAC218ndashAC227wedonotrecommend suchanapproach
AC344 Returningtospecificmattersresolvingone issuecreatesnewdifficultieselsewhereasis sooftenthepositioninourtaskandourrecommendation fortheRibbleValleyraisestwo separateissuesforustoresolve
AC345 FirstdespitethemoveofFishwickward backtoaPrestonconstituencytheinclusion ofthelsquoruralwardsrsquoinourrecommended RibbleValleyconstituencymeans thattheelectorateneedstobedecreased Inordertoensurecompliancewiththe overridingrequirementthattheelectorateof thisconstituencyfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotathewardsofCoatesCravenand Earbyshouldberemovedfromtheinitialproposals forRibbleValley(aswerecommended atparagraphAC319)Wenotethat thesewardshavenotpreviouslybeeninaClitheroe‑based constituencythatthepublictransport linksbetweenthemandtherestofthe RibbleValleyarepoorandthattheyaresaid tolooktowardsPendlefordailyamenities(Preston publichearingDay2p16)Removingthese wardsreflectsthecriteriaoflocaltiesexisting constituencyboundariesandlocalgovernment boundaries
AC346 Thesecondissueistheeffectofincluding FishwickinourproposedPrestonconstituency andweaddressthisconstituencyoverall nowFollowingtheinclusionofFishwickthe amendedproposalforthePrestonconstituency complieswellwiththecriteriaThis isparticularlytrueoflocaltiesandlocalgovernment boundariessincetheconstituency
WestNorth 58
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
would includeallbutthreeoftheCityofPreston wards(thetwoPrestonRuralwardsand Lea)
AC347 Inourviewandwithdueconsiderationfor thecriteriatheresultingneedtomoveelectors fromPrestoncanbestbemetbymoving thePrestonwardofGreyfriarsintoourrecommended LancasterconstituencyEricOllerenshaw MPforLancasterandFleetwoodagrees withsuchacourseofaction(IP021476) Ofcourseweappreciatethatatfirst thismayappearunsatisfactoryasthisward canbesaidtobetiedtoPrestonitselfand isboundedinthenorthbytheM55motorway Howeverwenotethatitiscurrentlynot partofacentralPrestonconstituencyandthere isreadyaccessviatheM55eithertotheA6 orM6bothofwhichprovideanexcellentlink norththroughtherestoftheconstituencyup toLancaster
AC348 AsaresultoftransferringthewardofGreyfriars wearealsoalivetothefactitmightbe saidthatwearedividingtheFulwoodareaHaving visitedtheregionwehavegivencarefulconsideration tothepossibilityofusinganalternative Prestonwardsuchas(amongothers) IngolGarrisonorSharoeGreenThefirst warddoesnothavesuchreadyaccesstoroad networksandtheRoyalPrestonHospitalis locatedinthelatterWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldmovebothSharoe GreenandGarrisonwardsoutofaPreston constituency
AC349 TheLabourPartyalsoproposestheinclusion ofSouthRibblewardsinaPrestonconstituency drawnfromthewestoftheRibblevalley andBamberBridgebutthiswouldaddanother localauthoritytotheconstituencyWeare reluctanttoalterthePrestonconstituencyfurther giventhebalanceitallowstheRibbleValley andFyldeconstituenciesandalsothe
need tofulfilthecriteriaintheproposedLancaster constituency
AC350 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal involvesanarrangementforPrestonthat wouldwefeeldividethecitytoagreaterextent thaniscurrentlythecaseandwouldhave theconstituencyextendeastintotheRibble Valleyandsouthwardsdisruptingtheexisting ChorleyconstituencyAnothereffectwould betocreateaphysicallylargeandwidespread ValleysofRibbleandLuneconstituency ItwouldextendfromMellortothe eastofPrestontothenorthofGarstangcontaining asouth‑easterntipofGreatHarwood wardsHoweverandmostsignificantly inourviewClitheroewouldnotbeincluded inthisconstituencyinsteadfindingitself inaPendle‑basedconstituencyThisseems tohavelittlesupport
AC351 Bearing inmindthatunderourrecommendation thePrestonconstituencywould includethewardofFishwick(andnotGreyfriars wardwhichwouldnowformpartofour recommendedLancasterconstituency)wenow turntotheinitialproposalsforLancaster
AC352 The initialproposaldidnotinourviewsatisfy thecriteriaasitcontainedtheRibbleValley ruralwardsaswehavealreadystated(paragraphs AC331ndashAC332)Howeveroncethese areremovedandGreyfriarsaddedwecreate aconstituencythatisdefinedinlargepart bythenorthndashsouthrunoftheM6motorway andthatcombinesamixtureofruraland urbanwardsFurthermoreitrespectslocalties asitlargelyreflectsthepositionpriortothe mostrecentboundaryreviewFinallybyremoving theRibbleValleywardsourrecommendation reducesthenumberoflocalauthorities includedintheconstituencyasinitially proposedbytheCommissionfromfour
59 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
to threethusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundaries
AC353 Therehavebeenexpressionsofsupportfor anamechangetoincorporatetheWyreaspect oftheconstituencyforexampletherepresentations ofEricOllerenshawMPandBen WallaceMPforWyreandPrestonNorth(IP022962) Wearepersuadedtorecommenda nameofLancasterandWyre
AC354 WenowexaminetheMorecambeandLunesdale constituencyundertheinitialproposals TheinitialproposalsseparatedMorecambe fromLancasterbutithasbeensuggested thatthesetownsshouldbecombined TheLabourPartyandtheLiberalDemocrats proposethisintheirrespectivecounter‑proposals ndashinsomeisolationinour view
AC355 Itiscleartousthattocombinethemwould disruptlocaltiesandwouldfly intheface oftheclearlyexpressedviewsoflocalpeople whoseargumentisasimpleonetheyare entirelydifferentplacesTheLancasterconstituency wasdescribedtousaslsquourbanandruralrsquo whereasMorecambeislsquoseasideandruralcommunityrsquo (PrestonpublichearingDay2p 3)WenotethepresencealsooftheUniversity ofLancasterintheLancasterconstituency
AC356 Wealsoobservethattheexistingconstituency arrangementisthesameasintheinitial proposalsinsofarasthetwotownsarealready separatedWeintendtorespecttheexisting boundariestothisextentwhereastheLiberal DemocratsandtheLabourPartywouldredraw them
AC357 We recognisethattherewillbethreelocal authoritiestodealwithinourrecommended LancasterconstituencyInourview howeverthisisasmalldisadvantage
when comparedtothemismatchofthetwotowns andthesignificantdisruptiontosurrounding constituenciesthatwouldensueshould LancasterandMorecambebecombined Wewereheartenedtohearthatalthough theysharethesamecitycouncilmeetings areheldinbothLancasterandMorecambe (PrestonpublichearingDay1p 49)Wealsonoteapetitionwith333signatures (IP025613)insupportoftheinitial proposal
AC358 Thereforewearepersuadedtorecommend theCommissionrsquosproposedMorecambe andLunesdaleconstituencyas setoutintheinitialproposalsforthreemain reasonsFirstitkeepsMorecambeandLancaster separateSeconditreducesdisruption tolocaltiesandlargelyreflectstheexisting constituencyandthirdtheonlyalteration tothecurrentconstituencyreunitesthe LowerLuneValleywardwiththeUpperLune Valleywardthusbetterrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesMsEmmaSmithalocal councillorfromMorecambeendorsedthis referringustotheruralissuesaffectingthe area(PrestonpublichearingDay1p49)
AC359 Nextweconsidertheinitialproposalsfor theconstituenciesofBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood andBlackpoolSouthInourviewit isimpossibletoconsideronewithoutcloseregard totheotherTherehavebeensomesuggestions bytheLiberalDemocratsforthemovement ofcertainwardsbutgiventheoverall acceptabilityoftheinitialproposalsforboth constituencieswecannotseeanyjustification forsuchmovementsanddonotfeel theywouldenhanceanyofthecriteriasufficiently torenderanychangenecessary
AC360 TheelectorateofBlackpoolSouthiscurrently toosmallandaccordinglyitisnecessary toextenditTheinitialproposals
WestNorth 60
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
achieved thisbyincorporatingtheBoroughofBlackpool wardsofClaremontLaytonandWarbreck whicharecurrentlywithintheBlackpool NorthandCleveleysconstituencyIn turnthisrequiredareconfiguredBlackpoolNorth constituency
AC361 We noteatthispointthattherehasbeen aconsiderabledegreeofsupportforthese twoproposedconstituencieswhichform alineardevelopmentofsimilarcharacterextending uptoCleveleyandFleetwoodwith goodcommunicationlinksthroughout
AC362 Inparticulartheinitialproposalsforthislocal areaaddressedasignificantgeographicalissue byredrawingtheboundarytothewestof theRiverWyreandincludingthetownofFleetwood withBlackpoolNorthThiswouldremove theeastndashwestdivideinthenorthernpart oftheexistingconstituencythatiscreatedby theriverthusaddressingissuesofgeography accessibilityandcommunicationsThe initialproposalsalsolargelyreturnedtheboundaries totheirpositionpriortothemostrecent boundaryreview
AC363 TheLabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalalso resolvesthisissuebutindoingsoaGarstang andCarnforthconstituencyissuggested thatwouldspreadeastfromtheRiver WyreasfarastheChippingwardandwould extendnorthfromthenorthernedgeofPreston tobeyondGarstangWearetroubledby thesizeofthisproposedconstituencywithin thesub‑regionanddonotfeelitadequately meetsthecriteriaforthegeography ofaconstituencyorlocalgovernment boundariesndashnotleastasitwouldencompass fourlocalauthoritiesWenotethatconcern hasbeenexpressednotleastbyWyreBorough Council(IP002842)thatfourwardscentred onPoulton‑le‑Fylde(TithebarnBreckHigh CrossandHardhorn)arebeing
disconnected fromotherWyrewardscontained intheproposedBlackpoolNorthand Fleetwoodconstituencybytheiradditionto theproposedFyldeconstituencytotheeastof BlackpoolandthewestofPreston
AC364 Thereasonforthisisthatwithoutthesewards theFyldeelectoratewouldbetoosmallBoth theLabourandtheConservativepartiesendorse suchanapproachasdotheLiberalDemocrats (thoughtheywouldaddoneotherward) andwereceivedarepresentationstating thatPoultonandLythamareverysimilar places(IP003030)
AC365 FirstwhilePoulton‑le‑Fyldemaybemade upofwardsfromWyreBoroughCouncilto movethemtoBlackpoolNorthandFleetwood (andthusreunitethemwithotherWyre wards)woulddisruptthewell‑supportedproposals forthisconstituencyandalsotheproposed BlackpoolSouthandFyldeconstituencies Secondwhileweunderstandthat oneissueofconcernisthattheWyreCivicCentre islocatedinPoulton‑le‑Fylde(IP021448) wedonotfeelthatthisaffectsany ofthecriteriasignificantlyenoughtowarrant changeWedonotproposeanythinghere whichaffectsthelocalgovernmentboundaries andseenoreasonforWyre BoroughCounciltoactdifferentlyin itsmanagementoftheboroughorthelocation ofitsciviccentreasaresultofour recommendations
AC366 LookingfurtherattheproposedFyldeconstituency undertheinitialproposalsitwould includeanorphanwardfromtheCityofPreston namelyLeaasiscurrentlythecaseWhile undesirablewenotethatthisisamainlyrural wardattheveryfarwesternoutskirtsofPreston withverygoodroadlinkstoLythamSt AnnesinthewestoftheconstituencyHaving Leainthisconstituencymeetsthe
61 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
broader goalofbestsatisfyingthecriteriainthe sub‑regionasawholeItcouldbelinkedtoa Prestonconstituencybutthiswouldpresentdifficulties inrelationtotheinclusionoftheward ofFishwickandwouldthereforehaveknock‑on effectsonourrecommendationsforthe LancasterandRibbleValleyconstituenciesWe alsoheardthatthethreeConservativecouncillors forLeaarecontenttoserveaspartof PrestonCityCouncilbutalsotobepartofFylde constituency(CR002759)Inthecircumstances werecommendthattheinitialproposals forFyldebeadopted
AC367 Duetothesignificantdisruptioncaused bythelossoftwoconstituenciesand inordertoensurethatallourrecommended constituenciesfallwithin5of theelectoralquotaithasonlyprovedpossible topreserveoneexistingconstituencynamely WestLancashire
AC368 Ofcoursewehavenotsimplyacceptedthis constituencywithoutregardtothesub‑region overallandtothecriteriaWerealterations toitlikelytoprovidebettercompliance withthecriterialocallyorwithinthe sub‑regionoverallthenwewouldnothesitate toamendtheexistingconstituencyHowever noalterationhasprovednecessarygiven ouroverallrecommendationsforthesub‑region andourdesiretoeffecttheminimum possiblechangeinaccordancewith thecriterionofhavingregardtoexisting boundaries
AC369 Thereforeinourviewweacceptthatthe WestLancashireconstituencyshouldremain thesameWenotethattheLabourPartyrsquos counter‑proposalwouldalterthisconstituency aswouldthatoftheLiberalDemocrats Weseenoneedtodoso
AC370 Wehaveconsideredtheinitialproposalfor theChorleyconstituencyGiventhattheexisting constituencyhasanelectoratenumbering belowthe5lowerlimititmustbe expandedTothatendtheinitialproposalsuggested extendingitwesttoincludethetwoadditional wardsofLostockandEcclestonandMawdesley Therearegoodcommunicationlinks withtherestoftheconstituencyandthiswould satisfythecriterionofrespectinglocalgovernment boundariesastheproposedconstituency wouldbecoterminouswiththeBorough ofChorleyAgainwehavenotdiscerned anysignificantoppositiontothisproposal whichweadoptbutwenotethatthe LiberalDemocratsagainproposeasignificant changethatwouldresultinsplittingboth LeylandandChorleyThisisunjustifiedin ourview
AC371 As aresultofmovingthewardsmentioned intheprecedingparagraphintotheChorley constituencyfromtheSouthRibbleconstituency wefinallyrecommendthatassuggested intheinitialproposalstheSouthRibble constituencyextendfurthereastwardsto incorporatethewardsofTardyGateLostock HallFaringtonWestandFarington East
AC372 To someextentmovingtheLostockward fromtheSouthRibbleconstituencytothe Chorleyconstituencywilldetachthefourwards westoftheRiverDouglas28fromtherestof SouthRibbleInourviewhoweverthisisabetter optionthantryingtoresolvetheissueby usingcross‑countyboundarylinkswithMerseyside thiswouldhaveknock‑oneffectsinboth sub‑regionswhichwedonotregardasdesirable Theconstituencywillincludetwolocal authorities(asiscurrentlythecase)andreturns theoverallboundarytoitspositionprior tothemostrecentboundaryreview
28 North MeolsHesketh‑with‑BecconsallTarletonandRufford
WestNorth 62
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC373 The LabourPartyrsquoscounter‑proposalshere wouldaffecttheWestLancashireconstituency andtheLiberalDemocratsrsquowouldinvolve across‑countyboundaryconstituencywith wardsfromMerseysideNeitherseemstous tofulfilthecriteriainthebestmannerAswehave touchedonthesub‑regionofMerseyside(less theWirral)ournextsectionsetsoutourrecommendations forit
AC374 The followingsummaryillustratestheadvantages ofourrecommendationsintheLancashire sub‑region
a The externalboundaryofLancashireisonly crossedinonelocation
b One existingconstituencywouldbe unchanged
c Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionofjustoneward
d Two existingconstituenciesareretainedwith theadditionoftwowards
e Two localauthoritiesarecontainedwhollywithin oneconstituency
f As awholetheconstituenciesaremorecompliant withthestatutorycriteria
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC375 The CommissionhasproposedthattheMetropolitan CountyofMerseysidebedrawnmore narrowlyforthepurposesofcreatingasub‑region byomittingWirralwhichisthenpaired withCheshireanddealtwithinthatsection ofourreport
AC376 This makesitmoreamenabletothedrawing upofconstituenciesthatmeettheelectoral sizelimitswithinboththenewlydefined Merseyside(lesstheWirral)andtheWirral elementsoftheCheshireandtheWirral
sub‑regions Itallowstootheavoidanceofanyconstituency whichwouldstraddletheRiverMersey betweeneitherWallaseyorBirkenheadand theCityofLiverpoolThisisnotacurrentfeature ofanyMerseysideParliamentaryconstituencies buttheCommissionbelievedsuch aconfigurationwouldhavebeenimpossible toavoidAdditionallythissub‑regional configurationenabledtheCommission initsinitialproposalstoavoidlinking areasofMerseysidewithneighbouringareas fromtheCountyofLancashire
AC377 The sub‑regionwrapsitselfalongtheIrish SeacoastfromthetownofSouthportinthe northandwestjustbelowtheRibbleestuary intotheMerseyestuaryandalongthefull lengthoftheCityofLiverpoolriversidetoSpeke inthesouthItreachesinlandtoembrace thelargeboroughsofSeftonKnowsley andStHelensallofwhichbordertheCounty ofLancashireMuchofthesub‑regionis urbaninitscharacteristicsheavilydevelopedand populatedradiatingoutfromthecitycentre ofLiverpoolanditshistoricwaterfrontThe 1974localgovernmentreorganisationbrought intothewiderMerseysidethesmallergroups offormerLancashiretownswhichtoday arekeyelementsoftheboroughsofSefton KnowsleyandStHelens
AC378 Therearecurrently11constituenciesin thissub‑regiononlyfourofwhichhaveelectorates within5oftheelectoralquotaAll othersfallbelowthelower5limitsomeconsiderably soTheCommissionrsquosproposalto allocatetennewconstituenciestothesub‑region receivedbroadsupportHoweverthe LiberalDemocrats(IP025331)haveoffered acounter‑proposaltobreakoutofthesub‑region firstatitsborderwiththeDistrictof WestLancashireandagainbyexpandingthe sub‑regiontoembraceHaltonandWarrington wards
63 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC379 TheextensionintoWestLancashirewasalso proposedbyJohnPughMPforSouthport(IP024414) MrLewisBaston(IP019266)anda numberofresidentsinSouthportandintheSouth RibblevillagesofBanksHeskethBanksand TarletonMrPhilipDavies(IP019363)andMr AdrianBailey(CR004719)bothfavouredextending outintoHaltonBoroughtoavoidthe needforacross‑riverMerseyBanksconstituency inCheshireandtheWirralWe addressthesecounter‑proposalslateras weconsiderthedetailedimplicationsfornew constituenciesWeaddressthepotentialHalton andWestLancashirecross‑countyboundary constituenciesatparagraphsAC78and AC367ndashAC369respectively
AC380 BoththeLabourandConservativeparties offeredcounter‑proposalswithinthebounds ofthesub‑regionasproposedbytheCommission andagreedtotheallocationoften constituenciesTheLabourParty(IP025315) supportstheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals forSouthportandthetwoStHelensrsquoconstituencies Itraisescounter‑proposalsforall theremainingconstituenciesinkeepingwith thecounter‑proposalsfromKnowsleyBorough Council(IP022426)whichretaintheexisting KnowsleyconstituencyIntheLabourPartyrsquos viewthesecauselessdisruptionacrossthe CityofLiverpoolandBoroughofSeftonthan didtheinitialproposals
AC381 The ConservativeParty(IP025314)originally submittedonlyminorchangestotheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsbuthavinglistened totheargumentsatthepublichearings particularlyfromKnowsleyCouncilresubmitted counter‑proposalswhichmirroredthose ofKnowsleyandtheLabourParty
AC382 TheLiberalDemocratsrsquoregionalsubmission takesamoreradicalapproachas wehavealreadyalludedtobothtothe
make‑up ofthesub‑regionoverallandtosomeof theindividualproposedconstituenciesAswe havementionedtheirsubmissionsuggestsreconfiguring thesub‑regiontoincludebothHalton andWarringtonboroughsThiswouldallow counter‑proposalswhichcrossintothoseboroughs fromMerseysideandovercometheproblematic initialproposalsforMerseyBanks(see CheshireandtheWirralsub‑region)provide solutionsforWarringtonandastheLiberal Democratsstressrecogniseexistingconstituency boundariesbetterforLiverpool
AC383 InadditiontheLiberalDemocratspropose thattenwardsfromSeftonshouldbeconsidered intheirbroaderproposalsforWestLancashire constituenciesTheirinclusioninthis wayenablestheLiberalDemocratstoputforward counter‑proposalsthatavoidsplittingthe wardscoveringthetownofFormbyandrestore thepre‑1974Parliamentaryconnectionof OrmskirkwithFormbyForthereasonsweexplain belowwerejecttheLiberalDemocratsrsquoproposals tocrossthesub‑regionalboundaries
AC384 Thebuildingblocksforthecurrentreview arethelocalgovernmentdistrictsandwards asatMay2010Inthissub‑regionthesecover wardswithelectoratesrangingfrom4590 inStockbridgeKnowsleyto12631inSpeke‑Garston LiverpoolMorethanhalfofthe79 wardshaveelectoratesofmorethan9000which limitstheflexibilitytoconfigurenewconstituencies Fourboroughauthoritiesmakeup thesub‑regionKnowsleyLiverpoolSeftonand StHelensFouroftheexistingconstituencies (KnowsleyStHelensNorthSt HelensSouthandWhistonandLiverpoolRiverside) haveelectoratesthatfallwithin5 oftheelectoralquota
AC385 Webeginourdetailedanalysisbylooking attheexistingconstituenciesthatmeetthe electoralquotaTheCommissionproposed
WestNorth 64
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
that justthetwoStHelensconstituencieswhich runalongtheeasternborderofthesub‑region remainunchangedItofferedradical changestoamongotherstheexistingand neighbouringKnowsleyconstituencyKnowsley Boroughsharesitsborderswitheachof theotherthreelocalauthorities29whichmake uptheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region TheCommissionproposedthattheKnowsley wardsofCherryfieldKirkbyCentraland PrescotWestbelinkedwithfiveCityofLiverpool wardsandoneSeftonBoroughwardto formanewLiverpoolNorthconstituencyIt alsoproposedthattheremainingKirkbywards ofNorthwoodParkShevingtonandWhitefield combinewiththesixSeftonwardsto theireastcurrentlyintheSeftonCentralconstituency toformanewMaghullconstituency
AC386 Howeveratthepublichearingin Liverpoolandsubsequentlyinwrittencorrespondence astrongwell‑reasonedset ofcounter‑proposalswasputforwardbyKnowsley BoroughCouncilandonthecouncilrsquosbehalf byMrVincentFraseratLiverpoolpublichearing (Day1pp18ndash20)Thesearguedthatthe existingKnowsleyconstituencyshouldalsobe retainedunchangedinadditiontothetwoSt Helensconstituencies
AC387 KnowsleyCouncilarguedstronglythat theCommissionhadfailedtorespectcommunity andlocaltiesinthecontextofitsinitial proposalsbydividingtheelectorateof thetownofKirkbybetweendifferentconstituencies andacrossthreelocalauthorityboundaries Weheardofexcellentcommunityand supportworkthewell‑developedsenseofplace andownershipfeltbyresidentsofKirkbyand theplansofthecouncilforregeneratingthe townallofwhichitarguedmightbeat
risk ifproposalstosplitrepresentationwereaccepted Similarbutlessforcefulargumentswere madeinrespectofthetownofHuyton‑with‑Roby alsowithinKnowsleyBoroughandthe existingconstituency
AC388 KnowsleyBoroughCouncilrsquosargumentswere supportedbytheLabourPartybythesitting MP(GeorgeHowarthIP003818and attheLiverpoolpublichearingDay1pp 27ndash31)andhisParliamentarycolleaguesfor LiverpoolWaltonLiverpoolWestDerbyLiverpool WavertreeandSeftonCentral(also attheLiverpoolhearingandcitedassupporters intheKnowsleycounter‑proposal)Significantly thousandsofindividualrepresentations werereceivedfromresidentsof bothKirkbyandthewiderboroughsupporting thiscounter‑proposalWealsonotethat followingtheLiverpoolhearingsandafterconsidering theKnowsleyCouncilcounter‑proposal theConservativePartyresubmittedits counter‑proposalforthesub‑regionwhichmirrored thoseputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncil andtheLabourParty
AC389 KnowsleyCouncilliketheCommissionplaces importanceontheavoidanceofdividing townsbetweenconstituenciesemphasising thisinrespectofbothKirkbyandHuyton Howeveritssupportforretainingtheexisting KnowsleyandthetwoStHelensconstituencies involvesthedivisionofthetwo wardsthatcoverthetownofPrescot30 between itsproposedKnowsleyconstituencyand theretainedStHelensSouthandWhiston constituencyThisisafeatureoftheexisting constituencywhichitproposesshouldbe carriedforwardintothisreview
AC390 Wereceivedasmallnumberofindividual representationswhichsought
29 St HelensCityofLiverpoolandSefton30 The PrescotEastandWestwards
65 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
alternatives toretainthetownofPrescotintact butsignificantlywithoutthemselvesarticulating worked‑throughalternativeschemes MrBaston(IP019266)produceda setofworked‑throughcounter‑proposalswhich unitedthetownofPrescotinaslightlyredrawn KnowsleyconstituencybyaddingPrescot EastandtransferringoutSwanside tohisproposedLiverpoolWest Derbyconstituency
AC391 The LiberalDemocratsalsosoughtto retainthetownofPrescotintactinanewconstituency ofKirkbyandMaghullwhichhad anaddedadvantageofnotsplittingrepresentation forthetownofFormby(see paragraphAC401)Howeveraswehaveindicated inorderfortheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposal forMerseysidetoworkitisnecessary tocrossthesub‑regionalboundariesinto bothCheshire(withWirral)andLancashire Todosowillcausesignificantlygreater upheavaltoourrecommendationsfor thosetwosub‑regionsthanismeritedbyaddressing theissuesfacingeitherPrescotor FormbyThisappliesalsotothecounter‑proposal putforwardbyMrBastonwhichwe rejectforsimilarreasons
AC392 PrescotiscurrentlysplitbetweentheKnowsley andStHelensSouthandWhistonconstituencies InourviewtheKnowsleyCouncil counter‑proposalhasbetterregardtoexisting localandParliamentaryboundariestakes accountoflocaltiesandmeetsthestatutory limitsforthesizeofelectoratesConsequently werecommendtheretentionin itsentiretyoftheexistingconstituencyofKnowsley aswellasthoseofStHelensNorthand StHelensSouthandWhistonasputforward intheinitialproposals
AC393 ByretainingtheKnowsleyconstituencyintact itispossibletomakeminimalchanges
to twofurtherconstituencieswithinthesub‑region LiverpoolWestDerbyandSouthport Wewillreturntothefourthexistingconstituency (LiverpoolRiverside)whichhasan electoratethatmeetstheelectoralrequirement atparagraphAC401
AC394 LiverpoolWestDerbysitstothewestof theM57motorwaywhichformsaphysicalbarrier betweenitandtheKnowsleyconstituency Itfallsbelowthelower5electoral limitby10101Itispossibletocorrectthis bythesimplemovementofaneighbouringward intotheproposednewconstituencyStephen Twigg(LiverpoolpublichearingDay 2pp7ndash9)MPforLiverpoolWestDerbywelcomed thepossibleinclusionoftheOldSwan wardintoareconfiguredWestDerbyconstituency inhispresentationtothepublichearings asalsquosensiblechangersquoWeweretoldthat thereisanaturalcommunitybetweenOldSwan andtheKnottyAshwardwhichispartof WestDerbyTheinclusionoftheOldSwanward inaLiverpoolWestDerbyconstituencyfeatures alsointheLabourandConservativepartiesrsquo theLiberalDemocratsrsquoandKnowsleyCouncilrsquos counter‑proposalsalthoughthesego ontoaddtheFazakerleyandWarbreckwards tothewestfromLiverpoolWaltonandmove TuebrookandStoneycroftwardintothe WaltonconstituencyWebelievethiscross‑transfer isunnecessary
AC395 TheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalsforLiverpool WestDerbymademuchmoresignificant adjustmentsasaresultofassigningthe wardsofNorrisGreenandCroxteth(currently intheWestDerbyconstituency)to itsLiverpoolNorthproposalAsaconsequence theCommissionthenhadtoaddthe KnowsleywardofStockbridgeandtheCityof LiverpoolwardofAnfieldtoWestDerbytomeet theelectoralrequirements
WestNorth 66
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC396 MrBaston(IP019266)wouldplaceOldSwan inhisLiverpoolWestDerbycounter‑proposal alsoHeofferedaslightlydifferentconfiguration asaresultofhisdetachingtheSwanside wardfromKnowsleyconstituencyand swappingtheFazakerleywardfortheward ofTuebrookandStoneycroftwhichhehas addedtoanextendedLiverpoolWalton
AC397 Mr Bailey(CR004719)wouldalsoinclude OldSwaninhisalternativeversionbutradically proposedthesplittingoftheTuebrookand StoneycroftwardbetweenthisandhisLiverpool WaltonproposedconstituenciesWe havedecidedasamatterofprincipleandin keepingwiththeCommissionrsquospolicyguidelines againstsplittingwardsunlessthecase todosowasexceptionalandcompellingIn thiscasethelsquoexceptionalandcompellingrsquotest wasnotsatisfied
AC398 MrTerryLargan(CR004440)andMr StephenWhittaker(IP025396)alsotooka simpleapproachandbothproposethattheClubmoor wardbeaddedasanalternativewith itsgoodlinkswithNorrisGreenandsharing thesameLocalAreaPolicingnetworkEither OldSwanorClubmoorwardwouldmeetthe electoralrequirementsWebelievethatthe inclusionofClubmoorintheexpandedLiverpool WestDerbyconstituencystrikesthebetter balancebetweenthefactorswearerequired totakeintoaccountandenablesabetter outcomeoverallfortheCityofLiverpoolconstituencies Inparticularitwillenableabetter solutionfortheLiverpoolwaterfrontwhich weaddressshortlyatparagraphsAC410ndashAC418 Thisnewconstituencywouldbemade upofwardssolelytothenorthandwestof theCityofLiverpoolandwerecommendit shouldretainthenameofLiverpoolWest Derby
AC399 WenowturntotheexistingSouthportconstituency whichformsthewesternboundary ofthesub‑regionalongtheMerseyestuary andtheIrishSeacoastThisalsofallsshort oftheelectoralquotalimitsbyjust5007electors TheCommissionrsquosapproachforsurmounting thisshortfallistoaddtheneighbouring SeftonwardofHaringtontothesouth ThiswardincludeshalfofthetownofFormby allowingforaconstituencywhichfallscomfortably withintheelectorallimitsHarington istheonlyMerseysidewardwhichhas acoterminousboundarywiththeexistingSouthport constituencyItisastheCommission statesdirectlyconnectedtothetown ofSouthportbytheA565althoughthisis somewhatmisleadingastheA565doesnotconnect theFormbyportionofHaringtontoSouthport directlysinceitisnecessarytocrossover intotheeasternhalfofthetowninorderto travelbetweenthewardsofHaringtonandAinsdale ThereisadirectraillinkbetweenHarington andAinsdaleandbeyondto Southport
AC400 ManyFormbyresidentshavemaderepresentations bothoralandwrittenobjecting tothedivisionoftheirtownbetweentwo constituenciesandthusbreakinglocaltiesWe havesomesympathywiththeircasenotleast becausetheentiretownofFormbyisitself separatedfromitsnearestsouthernneighbours intheBoroughofSeftonbyopenland Wewerelessmovedbyconcernsthatproposals forthemake‑upofParliamentaryconstituencies wouldsomehowcausethedemise ofFormbyepitomisedbythelsquoDonrsquotSplit FormbyrsquocampaignThisisnotthecaseand nothingwerecommendorsayneedcauseany divisionbetweenthepeopleofFormbyordisruption oftheircommunitylife
67 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC401 TheeasternhalfofFormbysitswithin theRavenmeolswardAddingthistoSouthport wouldexceedtheelectorallimitsJohn PughMPtheLiberalDemocratsMr Bastonandanumberofindividualresidentsin SouthportanditsnearneighbourvillagesinWest Lancashirehavearguedthatasolutionto theFormbyissueliesinbreakingoutoftheMerseyside (lesstheWirral)sub‑regionacrossthe Lancashireboundarytoredefinetheproposed (andexisting)constituenciesofWest LancashireandSouthRibble
AC402 Aspreviouslystatedwerejectthese counter‑proposalsastheywillcause significantlygreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forthoseconstituenciesand worsefulfilmentofthecriteriaoverallthan ismeritedbyresolvingtheFormbyissueWe notethatBillEstersonMPforSeftonCentral whichcoversFormbyalsosharesthis view(CR002220)
AC403 InourviewtheinitialproposalsforSouthport hadthemeritofbuildingonexistingconstituency boundariesentirelywithintheBorough ofSeftonrsquosboundariesLikeotherswho havemaderepresentationswehavebeenunable toproducerecommendationswithintheconfines ofthesub‑regionwhichresolvethesplitting oftheFormbywardsWethereforeconclude thattheCommissionrsquosinitialproposalis thelsquoleastworstrsquooptiontoproduceaSouthport constituencyandrecommendacceptance ofitInkeepingwiththeCommissionrsquos statedpolicythatwhereexistingconstituencies remainlargelyunchangedtheexisting nameshouldalsoremainthesamewe proposethatthisexpandedconstituencybe calledSouthport
AC404 ExtendingfurtherdownintoSeftontheinitial proposalsforanewMaghullconstituency
would incorporatefourwardsfromtheexistingKnowsley constituency31 Thisproposalwillnowfall awayaswehavealreadyrecommendedtheretention oftheexistingKnowsleyconstituency
AC405 Itispossiblehowevertoconfigureaconstituency consistingsolelyofwardsfromSefton byaddingtheChurchandVictoriawards currentlyintheBootleconstituencytothe wardswhichmakeuptheexistingSeftonCentral constituencylessHarington(whichforms partofthenewSouthportconstituency)This solutionputforwardbyKnowsleyCouncilkeeps intacttheelectorateofthetownofCrosby ItwassupportedbyothersincludingBill EstersonMPattheLiverpoolpublichearing(Day 1pp23ndash24)andalsoinhiswrittenrepresentations Ithastheadvantageofovercoming concernsraisedatthepublichearings andinindividualrepresentationsabout theinitialproposalswhichcombined thewardofBlundellsandswiththose moretraditionallyassociatedwithBootle constituencies
AC406 MrBastonrsquoscounter‑proposaltokeepthe twowardsofthetownofFormbytogetherbut outsidehisproposedSouthportconstituency byjoiningthemwithwardsfromWest Lancashirewhichwehaverejectedhas theeffectofofferinganalternativeconfiguration forboththeSeftonCentralandBootle constituencies
AC407 HetoocombinesthewardsofBlundellsands ChurchandVictoriabutdoesso inthecontextofaCrosbyandBootleconstituency whichstretchesalongtheradialrail androadlinksnorthwardsfromcentralLiverpool alongtheRiverMerseyIndoingso hejoinsthewardofKirkdaleaswellasthe docklandwardofBootle(butsee
31 Northwood ParkShevingtonandWhitefield
WestNorth 68
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
paragraphs AC410ndashAC418whereweaddressissues surroundingtheLiverpoolwaterfrontwards) MrPeterSmyth(IP019599)makessimilar proposalsbutcreatesaconstituencysolely withintheBoroughofSeftonheisableto dosobecausehehasseparatelyproposedcrossing outofthesub‑regionintoWestLancashire acounter‑proposalwhichwehaverejected forthereasonssetoutabove
AC408 WeagainaccepttheKnowsleyCouncilsolution asitbuildsonexistingtiesandhasstrong regardtoexistinglocalgovernmentandParliamentary boundariesItwouldbepossibleto retaintheexistingSeftonCentralnamebutwe recommendthisnewconstituencybecalledCrosby andMaghullreflectingtheguidanceatparagraph 43oftheCommissionrsquosAguide to the 2013 Review thatnamesshouldnormallyreflect themainpopulationcentresinanew constituency
AC409 TheexistingconstituencyofBootleconsisting onlyofSeftonwardsstretchinginland fromtheRiverMerseyandborderingthe CityofLiverpoolhastoosmallanelectorate toremainunchangedWehavealready recommendedthesecessionofthewards ofVictoriaandChurchtoanewlyconfigured CrosbyandMaghullconstituencyThe onlyoptionavailablethereforetocreateaconstituency whichwillmeettheelectoralquota limitsistocombinewardsfromSeftonand theCityofLiverpoolThereismuchsupport fromKnowsleyCounciltheLabourand Conservativepartiesandothersforadding theLiverpoolwardofWarbreckwhichsits tothenorthtotheexistingresidualBootlewards andweagreeThekeyissuetheniswhether itismoresensibletoaddKirkdalewhich liestothesouthorFazakerleytothenorth inordertofallwithinthenecessaryelectoral range
AC410 The existingconstituencyofLiverpoolRiverside whollywithintheCityofLiverpoolboundaries aswehavediscussedearlierhasan electoratethatfallswithin5oftheelectoral quotaInourviewitsMPLouiseEllman (IP003614)madeagoodcaseforits retentionwithoutchangeparticularlyinrelation tothepositiveaspectsoflinkingKirkdale wardtothecitycentreandwaterfrontareas Shearguedthattheselocal(riverside)ties werestrongerthanothersthatmaybeorhave beenproposedbetweenforexampleKirkdale andBootleastheCommissionorthe KnowsleyCouncilandothersrsquocounter‑proposals doorbetweentheexistingconstituency andKensingtonandFairfieldandPicton wardsassuggestedbytheCommission
AC411 We areattractedtoherargumentspredicated onmaintaininglocaltiesandrespecting existinglocalandParliamentaryboundaries forkeepinginasingleCityofLiverpool constituencythewardsthatarelikelyto formthewaterfrontpartsofaproposedLiverpool Watersdevelopmentandenterprisezone Itshouldbesaidthatthesewerenotviews espousedbyCouncillorPaulBrant(Liverpool publichearingDay1pp15ndash16)Deputy LeaderofLiverpoolCityCounciltheLabour andConservativepartiesortheCommission AllinsteadrecommendKirkdaleshould formpartofaBootleconstituency
AC412 We heardargumentselsewhereinrelation toKirkbyforexampleagainstcreatingconflicts ofinterestforthelocalMPbetweenpotentially competinglocalauthoritiesandweaccept againheretheforceofthisargumentWe concludethereforethatKirkdaleshouldnotlink withBootleinapredominantlyBoroughofSefton constituencywheresuchconflictsofinterest mayariseiftheproposedLiverpoolWaters developmentandenterprisezone
69 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proceeds andresultsintheextensionofLiverpoolrsquos commercialdistrictintoKirkdale
AC413 The maindifficultywithMsEllmanrsquosproposal whichattractssupportfromMrDavies (IP019363)butnotelsewhereasweperceive itisthatitrequiresafundamentalchange intheconfigurationoftheexistingconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodBootleSeftonCentraland Knowsley
AC414 We havealreadyconcludedatparagraph AC392thattheKnowsleyconstituency shouldberetainedunchangedand producedrecommendationsforaCrosbyand MaghullconstituencytosucceedSeftonCentral Wearefurtherhamperedbytheelectoral sizeoftheCityofLiverpoolwardswhich typicallyhavemorethan10000electorsper wardInourassessmentMsEllmanrsquosproposals donotworkinthiscontext
AC415 Fazakerley andWarbreckareneighbouring wardsintheexistingLiverpoolWalton constituencyandarethetwonorthernmost CityofLiverpoolwardsTheyhave thesameneighbourhoodpolicingteamand acommonlsquoCommunitySafetyDeliveryPlanrsquo WehavealreadyseeninKnowsleyCouncilrsquos andothersrsquocounter‑proposalsarguments forkeepingWarbreckandFazakerley togetheralbeitinthecontextofmaking goodtheconfigurationsofotherconstituencies intheCityofLiverpool
AC416 There aregoodroadandpublictransport linksforFazakerleywithandthroughboth WarbreckandBootleCounter‑proposalsfrom MrLarganandMrWhittakerbothsupportthe propositionthatthesewardsmoveintotheproposed newBootleconstituencyThisdoescreate aconstituencythatstraddlestwolocal
authorities butweareunabletoavoidthiswhichever configurationisadopted
AC417 We supportthiscounter‑proposalto includetheCityofLiverpoolwardsofWarbreck andFazakerleyinareconfiguredBootle constituencyasprovidingabetterbalance withregardtotheboundariesofexisting constituencieslocalgovernmentboundaries andlocaltiesWeproposeitbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolbetterreflecting itsconstituentpartsWedidconsiderthe nameBootleandFazakerleyreflectingthelargest componentcommunitiesbutthesearenot townsassuchandwehaverejecteditinfavour ofBootleandNorthLiverpoolAstheconstituency nowstraddlestwoauthoritieswe thoughtitinappropriatetoretaintheexisting Bootletitlealone
AC418 Having createdthisnewBootleconstituency wearethenabletogoontojointhe coreelementsoftheLiverpoolcitycentreand waterfrontareas32 includingKirkdalewiththe neighbouringwards(tothenorthandeast)of AnfieldCountyEvertonandKensingtonand FairfieldThismergeroftwocoreelementsof theexistingLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool Waltonconstituenciesproducesacohesive centralLiverpoolconstituencywithall theprospectivebenefitsthattheLiverpoolRiverside MPLouiseEllmanenvisagesastheLiverpool waterfrontdevelopsTheCommissionrsquos initialproposalsalsolinkedthewards ofEvertonandKensingtonandFairfieldwith theirneighbouringRiversidewardofCentral (albeitinadifferentconfigurationof otherwards)initsLiverpoolRiverside constituency
AC419 There aregoodroadrailandpublictransport linksboththroughandacrossthenew constituencyandallthewardsaredrawn
32 Kirkdale CentralPrincesParkandRiverside
WestNorth 70
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
entirely fromtheCityofLiverpoolboroughIt providesastrongfitagainstthestatutoryfactors wemaytakeaccountofThisconfiguration featuresalsoinbothMrLarganrsquosand MrWhittakerrsquoscounter‑proposals
AC420 AmemberofthepublicMrCurtisGladden (IP003280andLiverpoolpublichearing Day1p55)bothatthepublichearingand inawrittenrepresentationarguedthatKensington andFairfieldoughttobelinkedwith PictoninaWavertreeconstituencyWeagree withhimonthestronglinksbetweenparticularly PictonandWavertree(andjointhem below)butitisnecessarytolinkKensington andFairfieldwithitsRiversideandWalton neighbourstobringthenewconstituency withintheelectoratelimits
AC421 We recommendthisnewconstituencywhich drawsequallyfromtheelectoratesofthe twoexistingconstituenciesofLiverpoolRiverside andLiverpoolWaltonandwehavereflected thisinthenewnameofLiverpoolRiverside andWaltonratherthanretainoneor otherexistingname
AC422 Weareleftthenwithconfiguringtwoconstituencies fromtheremainingwardsthatcover thesouthofLiverpoolBuildingontheexisting LiverpoolWavertreeconstituency(less thewardsofKensingtonandFairfieldwhich weproposebetransferredtothenewRiverside andWaltonconstituency)wepropose addingtheneighbouringwardsofWoolton andBelleValewhicharepresently withintheexistingGarstonandHalewood constituency
AC423 BelleValeishometoalargeshoppingdevelopment whichactsasahubwithgoodroad andtransportlinksforcommunitiesinthewards ofChildwallandWooltonaswellaswiththose whichwillmakeupthefinalGarstonandHalewood constituencyBelleValewardcould
sit ineitheraLiverpoolWavertreeorGarstonand Halewoodconstituencyasforexampleit sharesaneighbourhoodpolicingteamwithboth AllertonandWooltonHoweverthelargeaverage electoralsizeofthoseCityofLiverpoolwards whichcouldbepartofanyofthethreesouth Liverpoolconstituenciesallowsonlyforthis combinationofwardsfortheremainingconstituencies ThisnewLiverpoolWavertreeconstituency willsitwhollywithintheCityofLiverpool boundaryrespectsandbuildsonlocal communitytiesandhasregardforexisting constituencyboundaries
AC424 LucianaBergerMPforLiverpoolWavertree drewattentionatthepublichearings (LiverpoolpublichearingDay2p28)to thelargestudentpopulationwithintheMossley Hillward(intheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituency)whereanumberoftheUniversity ofLiverpoolhallsofresidencearelocated Sheindicatedthatpotentialdifficultiesmay ariseifweweretoseparateoutrepresentation ofthesestudentsfromthatofthe universitiestheyattendThesameissuesarise withthewardofGreenbankwhichalsohouses hallsofresidence
AC425 Theinitialproposalsplacedthesewardsbetween theproposedLiverpoolRiversideandLiverpool WavertreeconstituenciesWehavealready outlinedwhyitisnotpossibleunderthis reviewtoretaintheexistingLiverpoolRiverside constituencycoveringallthreeuniversity wardsTheMPforLiverpoolRiverside LouiseEllmanwhogaveaddedemphasis tothecriticalimportanceofretainingKirkdale inanynewLiverpoolRiversideconstituency wassilentontheimplicationsof thelocationofthewardsthatlinktheuniversity Wehaveresolvedtheformerbutare unabletomanagethelatterWebelievethe maintenanceoftherelationshipbetweenthe Liverpoolwaterfrontwards
71 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(paragraphs AC410ndashAC418)isthekeyissuetoresolve itisnotunusualforuniversitiesandtheir hallsofresidencetobesomedistanceapart andindifferentconstituenciesandourview isthatmustbethecasehere
AC426 Wehavebeenabletomaintaintherelationship betweentheMossleyHillandGreenbank wardswhichcoverthehallsofresidence byaddingthemtothenewlyconfigured GarstonandHalewoodconstituency alongwiththedisplacedSt MichaelrsquoswardfromLiverpoolRiversideThis wardhasgoodpublictransportandroadlinks withmanyotherpartsofthenewconstituency buildsonexistingParliamentaryboundaries andrespectsexistinglocalauthority tiesWerecommendthisnewconstituency retainstheGarstonandHalewood nameofitspredecessor
AC427 Knowsley Councilandothershaveargued thatitisinappropriatetopairtogetherSpeke‑Garston andthethreeHalewoodwardsbecause theSpekeBoulevarddualcarriageway theA561actsasaphysicalbarrier betweenthetwocommunitiesThey argueitisinconsistentwiththeCommissionrsquos proposalsinotherpartsofthecountry wheresuchbarriersareseenasgrounds forassigningwardsthatborderthemto separateconstituenciesOurviewisthateach casemustbetakenonitsmeritsInthiscase bothSpeke‑GarstonandtheHalewoodwards arealreadyinthesameconstituencyand weseenocompellingcaseforaltering that
AC428 Forcompletenessweexpandonourdecision nottoendorsetheLiberalDemocratsrsquocounter‑proposals toextendthesub‑regionwestwards toembraceHaltonandWarringtonwards Wehavefounditentirelypossibletoconstruct tenconstituenciesfortheMerseyside
(less theWirral)sub‑regionwhichmeetthestatutory requirementsTofollowtheLiberalDemocratsrsquo counter‑proposalswouldinourview causegreaterupheavaltoourrecommendations forCheshireandtheWirral thanismerited
AC429 Tosummarisewehavemaderecommendations which
a retain threeexistingconstituenciesndashKnowsley StHelensNorthandStHelensSouth andWhistonndashunchanged
b make minorchangestofourfurtherexisting constituenciesndashSouthportBootle andNorthLiverpoolCrosbyandMaghull andLiverpoolWestDerbyndashtoenable themtoexceedthelowerelectoralquota limit
c have combinedlargeelementsoftheremaining existingconstituenciestocreate newoneswhichretainorbuildupon stronglocalcommunitytiesand
d have producedlessoverlapofconstituencies andlocalgovernmentboundaries thandidtheinitialproposals
We havenotpursuedanycounter‑proposalswhich suggestedsplittingwardsorcrossingout oftheMerseyside(lesstheWirral)sub‑region WenowmovefromMerseysideand northwardsintoourfinalsub‑regionof Cumbria
Cumbria
AC430 Therearecurrentlysixconstituenciesfor thissub‑regionwhichiscoterminouswiththe CountyofCumbriaEachoftheexistingconstituencies hasanelectoratethatissmallerthan theelectoralquotalowerlimitof72810It isnotpossiblethereforetoretainanyoftheexisting constituenciesunchanged
WestNorth 72
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC431 The Commissionproposedthattherebe fiveconstituenciesareductionofoneallofwhich canbecontainedwithintheboundariesof thesub‑regionTherewaswidespreadacceptance thatthiswassensibleHoweverthere wasalsowidespreadconcernthattheCommission hadfundamentallymisunderstoodthe geographicalanddemographiccharacteristics ofthesub‑regionsuchthatitsproposals foreachofthenewconstituencieswith theexceptionofCarlisle(seeparagraphsAC442ndashAC447) wereflawedandshouldnotbe allowedtostandThestrengthoffeelingonthis wasstrongrangingfromsurprisetoangerto incredulitymatchedbyabeliefthathadtheCommission hadthetimeoropportunitytovisit theareabeforemakingitsinitialproposalsit isunlikelythatitwouldhaveproceededinthe wayitdid
AC432 Wewerefortunatetohavehadanopportunity tovisitCumbriafollowingthepublic hearinginCarlisleandwerequicklyable tograsptheimpracticalityoftheinitialproposals forthefourproposedconstituenciesoutside Carlisle
AC433 CumbriaisboundedtothewestbytheIrish SeatothenorthbytheSolwayFirthandthe ScottishbordertotheeastbythePenninesand thecountiesofDurhamNorthumberlandand NorthYorkshireandtothesouthbyLancashire andMorecambeBayTheM6motorway runsthewholelengthofthecounty
AC434 Itisoneofthemostsparselypopulatedcounties intheUnitedKingdomwithapopulation ofaroundhalfamillionandadensity ofjust734peoplepersquarekilometre Cumbriacontainsboththelargestmountains andthebiggestlakesinEnglandIt isthesesignificantgeographicalconstraintsthat determinethenaturalboundariesofthe countyTheyalsodeterminethe
socio‑economic divisionswithinCumbriathenature oftheindustriesthatcanbeandarepursued thetraditionalcommunitiesandservice centresandthetransportlinksthatserve andconnectthem
AC435 Thesub‑regionwasgraphicallydescribed tousasabowlerhatwithalargecentral mountainousdomeinthemiddledented bythevalleyscreatedbynaturaldrainage flowsandwatershedsandapopulation largelygatheredaroundtherimWe weretoldbyRoryStewartMPforPenrithand theBorder(CarlislepublichearingDay1p 9)thatWordsworthlikenedthegeographyof theLakeDistricttoawheelScafellPikeisthe hubfromwhichstretchthevalleysandwatersheds ineverydirectionlikespokes
AC436 Wediscoveredtoothatthesenaturalfeatures alsocreaterealdifficultiesifonegoesagainst ratherthanwiththeflowTraveleastwards orwestwardsacrossthemountainranges islargelypossibleonlybyusingasmallnumber ofmountainpassesndashforexampleHardknott andWrynosendashwhichwhileatesting driveindecentweatherbutwithhighrisk ofdelaysareoftenquiteliterallyimpassable inthewintermonthsOurattentionwas drawnbytheWorkingtonConstituencyLabour Party(IP018940)toCumbriaCountyCouncilrsquos highwaysguidetowinterdrivinginthe countywhichshowsthatnopriorityisattached tokeepingthesepassesopenMany peoplehavetoldusthatsuchroutesshould notberelieduponascommunicationlinks Weweregratefultootothosewhotookthe troubletoshowthatpublictransportroutes alsoreflectedthegeographicaltopography withjourneysfromeasttowest(and viceversa)oftentakingseveralhoursand rarelywithouttheneedtochangebusesor trains
73 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC437 CommunitiesinCumbriafocusonandaround sixmainlsquoservicecentrersquotownsCarlisleWorkington WhitehavenBarrow‑in‑FurnessPenrith andKendalPeoplelooktothesecentres tomeettheirschoolinghealthcommunity workplaceandmarketneedsThere islittlemovementbetweenareasinterms ofpeopletravellingtousealternativeservice centresTimeandagainpeopletoldusthat theyhadnevervisitedaparticulartowndespite itsrelativeproximityasitwasnottheirnatural servicecentreAnyproposalsfornewconstituencies mustreflecttheimportanceofthese centressinceitisaroundsuchcentresthat localtieshavebeenestablished
AC438 Wetakeaccountoftheseconsiderations aswesetoutourrecommendations forthefivenewconstituencies forCumbriaandourreasonsfor arrivingatthatconfiguration
AC439 Therewasmuchsimilaritybetweenthecounter‑proposals ofthethreemainpoliticalparties Allwereunitedintheviewthatindrawing upitsinitialproposalstheCommissionhad failedtotakesufficientaccountoftheimpact thatthegeographyofthesub‑regionhas oncommunitycommunicationsandtransport links
AC440 TheLabourParty(IP025315)presented analternative(totheotherpartiesas wellastotheinitialproposals)approachtothe CarlisleconstituencyIttootooktheCityof Carlisleasitscorebutitlookedwesttoembrace DalstonandtheSolwaywards33 oftheBorough ofAllerdaleinordertomakeuptheelectoral shortfallratherthaneastasinthe initialproposalstofollowtheCityofCarlisle boundary
AC441 The counter‑proposalsfromallthemainpolitical partiesaresimilarCarlisleapartwithjust minorvariationsregardingthedrawingofthe boundariesfortheWestCumbriaPenrithand SolwayandWestmorlandandLonsdaleconstituencies WenotethattheConservativeParty (CR004791)wouldbecontentwithwhichever oftheconfigurationstheCommission mightultimatelydecideuponAnother localcompromisesolutionknownas lsquoTheFairerAlternativersquowascommendedto usbyagoodnumberofpeopleTherepresentation ofMissMaryBurkett(IP023401) wastypicalWearenotsurewhothe actualauthorofthiscounter‑proposalisbut wehavetakenitintoourconsiderationforthe wayforwardintheCumbriasub‑region
AC442 TheinitialproposalfortheCarlisleconstituency includedallbutoneoftheCityofCarlislersquos electoralwardsTheelectorateoftheCity ofCarlisleissuchthatitwasnotpossibleto includeallitswardsintheproposednewconstituency withoutexceedingtheupperelectorate rangelimitThisproposedconstituency stretchednorthtotheborderwith Scotlandandembracedanumberoflargely ruralwardstotheeastofthecitythatcurrently sitintheexistingPenrithandtheBorder ParliamentaryconstituencyInitsinitialproposals theCommissionconsideredthattheDalston wardforreasonsofbothgeographyand electoralsizeshouldbedetachedandlinked insteadwithitsneighbouringBoroughof AllerdalewardsinaproposedWorkingtonand Keswickconstituency
AC443 Thiswastheoneproposalthathadwidespread supportamongthosewhomaderepresentations includingtheLiberalDemocrats (IP025331)JohnStevensonMP forCarlisle(IP011905)andCouncillorMitchelson leaderofCarlisleCityCouncil
33 Aspatria HolmeMarshSillothSolwayWampoolWaverandWigton
WestNorth 74
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
(Carlisle publichearingDay2p12)Anumberof individualsincludingCouncillorMallinson(Carlisle publichearingDay1p51)wouldhavepreferred Dalstonwardorpartsofit(forexample inandaroundCarletonwhereanewhousing developmentwillmakeitstieswiththecity stronger)toremainlinkedwithitsfellowcity councilwardsbuttheelectoralquotarulesdo notallowforthis
AC444 Wedidreviewwhethertheargumentfor splittingtheelectoralwardtoenabletheCarleton areatostaywithinthecityconstituency wassocompellingastocreategrounds foranexceptiontotheCommissionrsquospolicy onnotsplittingwardsbutdidnotfindthis tobethecaseWereceivedrepresentations too fromDalstonincludingfrom MrCraigBroughcountychairoftheCumbria YoungFarmers(Carlislepublichearing Day2p5)whospeakinginhisindividual capacityasaDalstonfarmersawDalston aslsquoaveryruralwardrsquoHerecognisedthe difficultiesfacingtheCommissionandaccepted thatthealternativendashlinkingtoaneighbouring PenrithconstituencyndashhadmeritCouncillor NicolaClarke(IP007182)arguedalong similarlines
AC445 AnalternativeconfigurationforCarlislewas putforwardbytheLabourPartyCouncillor ColinGlover(CarlislepublichearingDay 1pp53ndash55)CarlisleCityCouncilandMrEric MartlewformerMPforCarlisle(Carlislepublic hearingDay2pp42ndash44)Itproposedthat itwaspreferabletoretainthelinkbetweenDalston andtheCityofCarlislebuttothenlinkthis withwardsofAllerdaleBoroughstretchingfrom BroughwestwardsalongtheSolwaycoast Thishadtheadvantageofjoiningupthemore industrialareaofAspatriaWigtonandSilloth withCarlislemakinguseofthenewNorthern DevelopmentroadroutesintoCarlislefrom thewestTheeffectwouldbetofreeup
those ruralwardseastofthecitytore‑form muchoftheexistingPenrithandthe Borderconstituency
AC446 Therewaslittlesupportforthistotheeast orelsewhereandwefoundthatthecasefor includingthelightmanufacturingcentresinAllerdale Boroughwaslesswellsupportedthanthat consideredbelowforbringingtogetherthe predominantlyruralareasofPenrithandSolway withinasingleconstituencyTheLabour Partyrsquoscounter‑proposalalsohasthedisadvantage ofspreadingtheproposednewconstituency acrosstwolocalauthoritiesrather thanjustone
AC447 Wesupportthereforetheinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituencyashaving thebestregardtothelocalauthorityboundary andtolocaltiesWeagreethatthe existingconstituencynameofCarlisleremains appropriate
AC448 Therearesixrecognisedlsquoservicecentresrsquo forCumbria(paragraphAC437)The existingconstituenciesaresoarrangedthat thereisonelsquoservicecentrersquoforeachconstituency Withareductioninthenumberof thesub‑regionrsquosconstituenciestofivethatcannot continuetobethecase
AC449 Wenotethattherewasbroadsupportfor combiningWorkingtonandWhitehaveninto asingleconstituencywhichwouldunitethe industrialcommunitiesalongthewestcoast Wereceivedmanyoralandwrittenrepresentations ndashforexamplefromtheJamieReed MPforCopeland(CarlislepublichearingDay 1p19)RoryStewartMPforPenrithandthe Border(IP019309andCarlislepublichearing Day1p8)andTimFarronMPforWestmorland andLonsdale(Carlislepublichearing Day1p41)ndashthatarguedinfavourofa WestCumbriaconstituencyrunningupanddown thecoastratherthanasintheinitial
75 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals combiningindustrialcoastcommunities withdisparatemorerural communitiesspanningtheCumbrian Mountains
AC450 Physicallythemountainsaresuchabarrier thatitisnotsensibletotrytoembracethem inthewaysproposedbytheCommissionThey woulddivideratherthanintegratecommunities withintheconstituencycausingthe breakingoflocaltiesInadditionitwasargued thattheinterestsofbothindustrialcoastal communitiesandtheagriculturalortourist communitiesinlandtothenorth‑eastand south‑eastwerebetterservedbydistinctMembers ofParliamentwhocoulddevelopspecialist knowledgeoftherespectiveindustries andasaresultbetterrepresenttheinterests oftheirconstituentcommunitiesinParliament andelsewhereJamieReedMPfor Copeland(CarlislepublichearingDay1pp 22ndash23)andCouncillorKarlConnorrepresenting EgremontNorthward(Carlislepublic hearingDay1pp24ndash26)madestrongand passionatecasesforanlsquoenergycoastrsquoconstituency withSellafieldatitsheart
AC451 There hasbeensomedebateastowhere thesouthernreachesofthiscoastalconstituency shouldlieBoththeLabourandConservative partiessupportedbyCopelandBorough Council(IP022947)andothersargued thattheboundaryshouldbebetweenthe BeckermetandGosforthwardswheretheRiver CalderflowsdirectlythroughtheSellafield siteitselfTheyarguedthatelectedrepresentatives ofboththisconstituencyandits southernneighbourwouldhaveadirectandvested interestinthedevelopmentoftheSellafield siteandinissuesaffectingitsworkforce whichisdrawnfromcommunitiesboth northandsouthofthesite
AC452 OthersincludinglsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoproposals favourtheinclusionofGosforthward inthenorthernconstituencythusseparating theinterestsofthetwoMPssothatone wouldfocuslargelyonSellafieldandtheother ondefenceindustryissuessurroundingBAE SystemsrsquoBarrowdockyardThissuggestion attractedwidespreadsupportfrommany individualsacrossthesub‑region
AC453 Thereismeritinbothproposalsbutwe areattractedtothecasefordrawingtheboundary alongthesouthernedgeoftheGosforth wardandnotsplittingrepresentationfor theSellafieldsiteOurrecommendednewconstituency wouldhavelinkswithtwolocalauthorities andoverallinourviewstrikesamuch betterbalancebetweenthefactorsrelating togeographicalconsiderationslocalties andexistingconstituenciesthanwouldtheconstituency outlinedintheinitialproposalsWe recommendthatitshouldbecalledWest Cumbria
AC454 Continuingsouththeinitialproposalsfor anexpandedBarrow‑in‑Furnessconstituency whichwouldhaveextendedwest alongMorecambeBaytoincludethetwo Grange‑over‑Sandswardsmetwithconsiderable oppositionontwomaingrounds
AC455 Firstthereisaraillinkbutnoroadconnecting theFurnesspeninsulainthewestand theCartmelpeninsulaintheeastSecondthe townsandvillagesontheCartmelpeninsula looktoKendalastheirnaturalservice centre(seeabove)ratherthantoBarrow aswasexplainedbyamongothersthe LowerAllithwaiteParishCouncil(IP021244) TimFarronMPforWestmorlandand Lonsdale(IP022537)andCouncillorMaryWilson (IP018234)TraditionallytheCartmelpeninsula hasformedpartofWestmorlandandLonsdale constituency
WestNorth 76
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
AC456 Weacceptthecaseputtousthatapart fromtheraillinkconnectionsbetweenthe FurnessandCartmelpeninsulasarepoorWe recommendinsteadhavingregardbothtogeographical constraintsandtolocaltiesthatthe existingBarrowconstituencyshouldextendnorthwards uptoandincludingtheSeascaleward toenableittoexceedthelowerelectorate rangelimitIndoingsoandalthough theproposedconstituencywouldrelate tothreedifferentlocalauthoritieswebelieve ourrecommendationtakesbetteraccount oftheotherstatutoryfactorsparticularly withregardtotheboundariesof existingconstituenciesaccessibilityandlocal ties
AC457 WereceivedrepresentationsfromUlverston ConservativeBranch(IP021261)which expressedconcernsaboutthecorrectnaming ofthisenlargedconstituencyproposing insteadthenameofFurnessPeninsula Onbalancewerecommendtheretention oftheexistingconstituencynameof BarrowandFurness
AC458 Weareleftthenwiththeverylargepredominantly ruralareastretchingfromMorecambe BayinthesouthtotheSolwaycoast inthenorth‑westandfromtheCumbrianMountains inthesouth‑westtothecountyborder intheeastItcontainstheremainingtwo lsquoservicecentresrsquoofKendalandPenriththeCentral andNorthernLakestouristareasandthe sparselypopulateddairy‑farminghinterlands tothenorthandeastWewerefortunate thattherewasconsiderableconsensus basedongeographicalconsiderations aswellasonsocio‑economicand demographiccharacteristicsastowherethe naturaldivisionslieandwhichallowfortwoevenly sizedelectorates
AC459 Forthereasonsofgeographysetoutabove wehaverejectedtheinitialproposalstojoin CopelandonthecoasttoWindermereand theCentralLakesareaoftheSouthLakeland DistrictacrosstheCumbrianMountain rangeinaproposedCopelandand WindermereconstituencyThismeansthat itisnowpossibletobuildontheexistingconstituency ofWestmorlandandLonsdalewhich issome6600electorsshortoftheminimum electoraterangelimit
AC460 Theheartoftheexistingconstituencyis KendalwhichsitsinthemiddleoftheSouthLakeland Districtbowlandthroughwhichallthe maintransportroutespassTheseincludeperhaps notsurprisinglytheA6andA685roads aswellasgoodpublictransportservicesthat connectKendalandtheCentralandSouthern LakeswiththetownsofKirkbyStephen andAppleby‑in‑Westmorlandtothe north‑east
AC461 We makethecommentthatthisisnotsurprising asthesetownswerepartofthehistoric countyofWestmorlanduntil1974and indeedApplebywasitscountytownThe extensionoftheexistingconstituencynorthwards issupportedbyallthemainpartiesand bymanyindividualcommentatorsincluding forexampleCouncillorAndyConnell deputymayorofAppleby‑in‑Westmorland (CarlislepublichearingDay1p 5)andMrPeterDudek(IP012058)
AC462 Thereisadivisionofopinionmainlyon thepartoftheLiberalDemocratsastowhether theEdenwardsofShapandCrosbyRavensworth shouldbeincludedinthisnewconstituency Theseviewsarenotstronglyexpressed andasthemajorityincludingthosewho favourlsquoTheFairerAlternativersquoplacethesewards outsidetheconstituencywehave
77 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
decided toplacethesetwowardsinanorthernPenrith andSolwayconstituency
AC463 TherearealsosomeforexampleintheLong MartonwardwholooknorthtoPenrithas theirservicecentreratherthantoKendalEden DistrictCouncil(IP023283)foroneargued thiscaseWeacceptthatresidentsofLong Martonward(whichhasanelectorateof just988)aremorelikelytolooknorthtoPenrith thanaretheirneighboursinthetwoAppleby wardswhohistoricallyhavelookedsouth towardsKendalConsequentlyweexclude thatwardfromtherecommendedconstituency whichshouldinheritthenameWestmorland andLonsdalefromtheexistingconstituency Thisconstituencyreflectsstrongly thegeographyoftheregionlocaltiesand communicationlinksandbuildsonexisting localandParliamentaryboundaries
AC464 ThisleavesfinallythetownsofPenrithKeswick andCockermouthandtheruralhinterlands totheeastandwestThisareafrom theEdenValleytotheSolwayPlainasweheard fromRoryStewartMPatthepublichearing (CarlislepublichearingDay1pp10ndash11)and inwritingfromEdenDistrictCouncilisoneof themostsparselypopulatedinEnglandFurthermore theexistingPenrithandtheBorder constituencyhasmoreself‑employedpeople thananyotherconstituencyinBritainhas extremelylowunemploymentandcrimerates andisdominatedbydairyfarmingitisthe largestproducerofmilkinEngland
AC465 Thethreenorthernlakeslinkthethreemain townsFarmerstaketheirstocktothePenrith MartandtheagriculturalcollegeisatNewton RiggjustoutsidePenrithBothRoryStewart MPandmembersoftheNationalFarmers Unionorallyatthepublichearingsand inwrittenrepresentationsstressedtheimportance ofensuringrepresentationat
Westminster thathasaclearfocusonandknowledge oftheissuesfacingruralareasandlivestock farming(inmuchthesamewayasthecoastal MPsspecialiseintheenergyanddefence industries)Theyarguedthataconstituency drawnfromthewardsoftheDistrict ofEdenandtheBoroughofAllerdalewith theoverflowDalstonwardfromCarlislewould providesuchaclearfocus
AC466 WerecommendthecreationofanewPenrith andSolwayconstituencyThisconstituency reflectsstronglythegeographylocal tiesandcommunicationlinksofthe region
AC467 Tosummarise
a We adopttheCommissionrsquosinitialproposals foraCarlisleconstituency
b We recommendfournewconstituenciesthat buildonbutreconfiguretheexistingconstituencies ofCopelandBarrow‑in‑Furness WestmorlandandLonsdaleandPenrith andtheBordertoreflectthelossof thesixthexistingconstituencyofWorkington (nowsubsumedintothe newPenrithandSolwayandWest Cumbriaconstituencies)
Conclusions and recommendations
AC468 Wesetoutbelowasummaryofour conclusionsastotherecommendedconstituencies withintheNorthWestWefollow thecoursealreadyadoptedofsettingout thoseconclusionsbyreferencetothefive sub‑regions
AC469 Atthesametimewehaveindicatedthe namesoftherespectiveconstituencies
AC470 Ingeneraltermsexceptwhereotherwise statedwehaveadoptedthenameof theconstituencyassetoutintheinitial
WestNorth 78
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
proposals Wehavetakenthiscoursewhereour recommendationscoincidewiththeinitialproposals orwherethechangethatweenvisage isofalimitednaturesuchasnotto warrantanyalteration
AC471 Where wehavedepartedfromthename asdesignatedintheinitialproposalsourdefault positionhasbeentousetheexistingname oftheconstituencywherethatisappropriate Failingthatwehaveadoptedthename thatreflectsthoserepresentationsthatwere madetousorallyorinwritingconcerning namesWhereappropriateassetout belowwehaveutilisedanewnamethatreflects theprincipaltown(s)particulargeographical featuresorarea
Cheshire and the Wirral
AC472 Under ourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofsix ofthe13constituenciesinthissub‑regionplus across‑countyboundaryconstituencyat Poynton
AC473 We recommendthesamenamesbeadopted forfourofthemndashChesterCongletonCrewe andNantwichandMacclesfieldndashandthat thenamesoftheremainingtwondashWirralDeeside andEddisburyndashshouldbechangedfrom theinitialproposalsalthoughtheirconfiguration remainsthesame
AC474 Congleton andCreweandNantwichremain thesameastheexistingconstituencies
AC475 There werethreeconstituenciesthatrequired onlyminimalchangefromtheexistingconstituency intermsofwardmovementnamely WallaseyBirkenheadandTatton
AC476 The followingconstituenciesdifferfromthe initialproposalsMerseyBanksandWeaver
Widnes andRuncornWarringtonSouthandWarrington NorthWehaverecommendedadifferent nameinthefirstinstanceonly
AC477 We recommendthesamecross‑countyboundary constituencyatPoyntonastheinitial proposals
Greater Manchester
AC478 In relationtoGreaterManchesterfourof ourconstituenciesarethesameastheinitialproposals CheadleHazelGroveandPoyntonStalybridge andHydeandWiganWerecommend thatthenamesoftheconstituencies beadopted
AC479 Howeveratotalof18ofourrecommended constituencies(outofatotalof 26constituencies)haverequirednoorminimal changetotheexistingconstituency
AC480 Theexistingconstituencieswhichareretained areHeywoodandMiddletonLeighMakerfield ManchesterWithingtonRochdaleSalford andEcclesWiganWorsleyandEccles SouthandWythenshaweandSaleEastWe recommendthattheexistingnamesbe retained
AC481 The constituenciesthatrequiredonlyminimal changeareAltrinchamandSaleWestBolton SouthEastBoltonWestBurySouthBury NorthCheadleManchesterGortonStretford andUrmstonandStalybridgeandHyde Againsincetherehavebeenonlyminoralterations withoneexception34werecommend thattheexistingnamesoftheconstituencies beretained
AC482 AsindicatedweadopttheCommissionrsquos proposalsforacross‑sub‑regional HazelGroveandPoynton
34 We renameManchesterGortonasManchesterGortonandReddishNorth
79 WestNorth
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
constituency andrecommendthatthename beutilised
AC483 Howeverwedepartfromtheinitialproposals foracross‑sub‑regionalconstituencyof RochdaleandRawtenstallInsteadwerecommend across‑countyboundaryconstituency northofBoltonlinkingitwithDarwen Werecommendthattheconstituencybe namedBoltonNorthandDarwentoreflectthe townsthatmakeuptheconstituency
AC484 Additionallythefollowingsixconstituencies differfromtheinitialproposalsBlackley andBroughtonManchesterCentralOldham WestOldhamEastandSaddleworthAshton‑under‑Lyne andStockportIneachinstance therecommendedconstituencystillbears averystrongoverlapwiththeexistingconstituency suchastowarranttheretentionof theexistingconstituencyname(savetheaddition ofDentontotheAshton‑under‑Lyneconstituency)
Lancashire
AC485 Wehavemaintainedtheinitialproposals foreightofthe14constituencies(to whichthereshouldbeaddedonecross‑sub‑regional constituency)Ofthesewerecommend thesamenamesforallofthemasthe initialproposalsTheyareChorleySouthRibble BlackburnMorecambeandLunesdaleBlackpool NorthandFleetwoodBlackpoolSouth FyldeandWestLancashire
AC486 OnlyWestLancashireremainsthesame astheexistingconstituency
AC487 Wehaverecommendedminimalchanges totheinitialproposalsforPrestonand LancasterandWyrethelatteralsohasa differentnamerecommendedtothatinthe initialproposals
AC488 Thefollowingconstituenciesrsquoconfigurations differfromtheinitialproposalsRibble ValleyBurnleyandAccringtonEastPendle andRossendaleandOswaldtwistleDue tothesignificantchangesineastLancashire wehaverecommendednewnamesfor thelastthreeofthese
AC489 Ourrecommendationforthecross‑county boundaryconstituencyisbetweenBolton NorthandDarwenandwehaverecommended thisnameforit
Merseyside (less the Wirral)
AC490 Underourrecommendationswehavemaintained theinitialproposalsinrespectofthree constituenciesoftheteninthissub‑region Ofthesewerecommendthesamenames forallofthemastheinitialproposalswhich withoneminorchangemirrortheexisting constituenciesTheseareSouthportSt HelensNorthandStHelensSouthand Whiston
AC491 We havealsoretainedtheexistingconstituency ofKnowsleywiththesamename
AC492 TheexistingconstituencyofLiverpoolWest Derbyrequiredonlyminimalchangeandwe haverecommendedretentionoftheexisting name(albeitwithoutthecomma)
AC493 Wehavehadtomakefurtheralterationsto theinitialproposalsforBootleandforMaghull whichinturnhasledustorecommend thatthoseconstituenciesbenamed BootleandNorthLiverpoolandCrosbyand Maghull
AC494 Moresubstantialchangeshavebeenrequired totheCommissionrsquosremaininginitialproposals tocreateourrecommendedconstituencies ofLiverpoolWavertreeGarstonand HalewoodandLiverpoolRiversideand
WestNorth 80
Walton Intheformertwoinstancestherecommended constituenciesstillhaveaverystrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciessuch astowarranttheretentionoftheexistingconstituency namesInthelattercasewehavecombined majorelementsoftwoexistingconstituencies andhavethusfeltitappropriateto retainbothnamesintherecommendedname ofthenewconstituency
Cumbria
AC495 OurrecommendationsforCumbriamaintain theinitialproposalsinrespectofjustone constituencyofthefiveinthissub‑regionFor thiswerecommendthesamename(Carlisle) astheinitialproposals
AC496 Theremainingfourconstituenciesallnow displaysuchsubstantialchangesfromtheinitial proposalsthatwehavebeenunabletorecommend retentionofanyoftheproposednames Twoofournewconstituencieshaveastrong overlapwiththeexistingconstituenciesof WestmorlandandLonsdaleandBarrowandFurness suchthatwerecommendtheretention oftheexistingnamesForthetworemaining constituencieswerecommendnewnames bettertoreflecttheareasthatmakeupthe newconstituenciesnamelyWestCumbriaand PenrithandSolway
Mark Savill Nicholas Elliott QC Neil Ward July 2012
WestNorththeonCommissionersAssistantthebyReport
81 WestNorth
4 How to have your say
41 We areconsultingonourrevisedproposals foraneight‑weekperiodfrom16 October2012to10December2012Weencourage everyonetousethisopportunityto helpfinalisethedesignofthenewconstituencies ndashthemorepublicviewswehearthe moreinformedourdecisionswillbebeforemaking finalrecommendationstoGovernment
42 People arewelcometowritetousonanyissue regardingtheconstituencyboundarieswe setoutinthisreportandtheaccompanyingmaps butourmainfocusduringthisfinalconsultation isonthoseconstituencieswehaverevised sinceourinitialproposalsTheseappear inredontheaccompanyingmapsWe willconsiderrepresentationsoninitialproposals wehavenotrevised(blueonthemaps) Howeverparticularlycompellingfurtherevidence orsubmissionswillbeneededtopersuade ustomakechangesnowtoproposals thathavealreadywithstoodintensivescrutiny ofrepresentationsmadeintheearlierstages ofconsultationFurtherrepresentationson unmodifiedinitialproposalsthatsimplyrepeat evidenceorargumentsalreadyraisedinprevious consultationstagesarelikelytocarrylittle weightwiththeCommission
43 When respondingweaskpeopletobearin mindthetightconstraintsplacedontheCommission bytherulessetbyParliamentand thedecisionswehavetakenregardingadoption ofaregionalapproachanduseoflocal governmentwardsdiscussedinchapter2and inA guide to the 2013 ReviewMostimportantly
a we cannotrecommendconstituenciesthat haveelectoratesthataremorethan5 aboveorbelowtheelectoralquota(apart fromthetwocoveringtheIsleofWight)
b we arebasingourrevisedproposalsonlocal governmentwardboundaries(asat May2010)asthebuildingblocksofconstituencies Ourviewisthatintheabsence ofexceptionalandcompellingcircumstances itwouldnotbeappropriate todividewardsincaseswhere itispossibletoconstructconstituencies thatmeetthe5statutoryrequirement withoutdoingsoand
c we haveconstructedconstituencieswithin regionssoasnottocrossregionalboundaries Compellingreasonswouldneed tobegiventopersuadeusthatweshould departfromthisapproach
44 These issuesmeanthatweencouragepeople whoaremakingarepresentationona specificareatobearinmindtheknock‑oneffects oftheircounter‑proposalsTheCommission mustlookattherecommendations fornewconstituenciesacross thewholeregion(andindeedacrossEngland) Wethereforeaskeveryonewishingto respondtoourconsultationtobearinmindthe impactoftheircounter‑proposalsonneighbouring constituenciesandonthosefurther afieldacrosstheregion
How can you give us your views
45 We encourageeveryonetomakeuseofour consultationwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk whencontributingtoourconsultationThe websitecontainsalltheinformationyouwill needtocontributetothedesignofthenewconstituencies includingtherevisedproposalsreports andmapsalltherepresentationswehave receivedsofarduringthereviewtheinitial proposalsreportsandmapstheelectorate sizesofeverywardandanonlinefacility whereyoucanhaveyoursayonourrevised proposals
WestNorth 82
sayyourhavetoHow4
46 You canalsocontributetoourconsultation bywritingdirectlytousor byemailinguswithyourviewstonorthwestbcommenglandxgsigovuk If youwishtocommentonmorethanone regionpleasesendyouremailtoreviewsbcommenglandxgsigovuk You canalsofindthesedetailsontheseparatesummary sheetcopiesofwhichcanbefoundat yourlocalplaceofdepositordownloadedfrom ourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govuk
47 We encourageeveryonebeforesubmitting arepresentationtoreadourapproach todataprotectionandprivacyand inparticularthepublicationofallrepresentations andpersonaldatawithinthemThis isavailableatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependent govukprivacy‑and‑cookies
What do we want views on
48 We wouldlikeparticularlytoasktwothings ofthoseconsideringrespondingontherevised proposalswehavesetoutFirstifyousupport ourrevisedproposalspleasetellussoas wellastellinguswhereyouobjecttothemPast experiencesuggeststhattoooftenpeoplewho arehappywithourproposalsdonotrespond insupportwhilethosewhoobjecttothem dorespondtomaketheirpointsndashthiscan givearatherdistortedviewofthebalanceof publicsupportorobjectiontoproposalsSecond ifyouareconsideringobjectingtoourrevised proposalsdopleaseusetheresourcesavailable onourwebsiteandattheplacesofdeposit (mapsandelectoratefigures)toputforward counter‑proposalswhichareinaccordance withtherulestowhichweare working
49 Above allhoweverweencourageeveryone tohavetheirsayonourrevisedproposals andindoingsotobecomeinvolvedin drawingthemapofnewParliamentaryconstituencies Thisisthefinalchancetocontribute tothedesignofthenewconstituencies andthemoreviewswegetonthose constituenciesthemoreinformedourconsideration indevelopingthemwillbeandthe betterwewillbeabletoreflectthepublicrsquos viewsinthefinalrecommendationswe presentin2013
410 It wouldbeveryhelpfulifinyourresponse youspecifyclearlyinwhatformyou accessedthisrevisedproposalsreportie either
a in electronicform(evenifyouthenprinted itofftoread)or
b as ahardcopypublication
83 WestNorth
Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
1 Altrincham and Sale West BC 79190 Altrincham Trafford 8242 AshtonuponMersey Trafford 7293 Bowdon Trafford 7244 Broadheath Trafford 9313 Bucklow‑StMartins Trafford 7182 HaleBarns Trafford 7582 HaleCentral Trafford 7373 StMaryrsquos Trafford 8732 Timperley Trafford 8392 Village Trafford 7837
2 Ashton-under-Lyne and Denton BC 79081 AshtonHurst Tameside 8853 AshtonStMichaelrsquos Tameside 8566 AshtonWaterloo Tameside 8604 Audenshaw Tameside 8794 DentonNorthEast Tameside 8604 DentonSouth Tameside 8582 DentonWest Tameside 9329 DroylsdenEast Tameside 8962 StPeterrsquos Tameside 8787
3 Barrow and Furness CC 79270 BarrowIsland Barrow‑In‑Furness 1797 Central Barrow‑In‑Furness 3037 DaltonNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4873 DaltonSouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4789 Hawcoat Barrow‑In‑Furness 4240 Hindpool Barrow‑In‑Furness 4325 Newbarns Barrow‑In‑Furness 4329 Ormsgill Barrow‑In‑Furness 4374 Parkside Barrow‑In‑Furness 4328 Risedale Barrow‑In‑Furness 4669 Roosecote Barrow‑In‑Furness 3946 WalneyNorth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4280 WalneySouth Barrow‑In‑Furness 4238 Bootle Copeland 1063 Haverigg Copeland 1076 HolbornHill Copeland 1910 MillomWithout Copeland 1188 Newtown Copeland 2796 Seascale Copeland 2295 Broughton SouthLakeland 1868 LowFurness SouthLakeland 1465 MidFurness SouthLakeland 3196 UlverstonCentral SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonEast SouthLakeland 1600 UlverstonNorth SouthLakeland 1549 UlverstonSouth SouthLakeland 1485 UlverstonTown SouthLakeland 1473 UlverstonWest SouthLakeland 1532
4 Birkenhead BC 74264 Bebington Wirral 11832 BidstonandStJames Wirral 9787 BirkenheadandTranmere Wirral 9743 Claughton Wirral 11294 Oxton Wirral 11092
WestNorth 84
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Prenton Wirral 10877 RockFerry Wirral 9639
5 Blackburn BC 76468 Audley BlackburnwithDarwen 5665 Bastwell BlackburnwithDarwen 5125 BeardwoodwithLammack BlackburnwithDarwen 4561 CorporationPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4803 Ewood BlackburnwithDarwen 4615 Fernhurst BlackburnwithDarwen 4356 HigherCroft BlackburnwithDarwen 5201 LittleHarwood BlackburnwithDarwen 4391 LiveseywithPleasington BlackburnwithDarwen 5462 Meadowhead BlackburnwithDarwen 4392 MillHill BlackburnwithDarwen 4218 QueenrsquosPark BlackburnwithDarwen 4126 RoeLee BlackburnwithDarwen 4653 ShadsworthwithWhitebirk BlackburnwithDarwen 5348 ShearBrow BlackburnwithDarwen 5142 WensleyFold BlackburnwithDarwen 4410
6 Blackley and Broughton BC 80432 Charlestown Manchester 10004 Cheetham Manchester 13255 Harpurhey Manchester 11384 HigherBlackley Manchester 9077 MilesPlattingandNewtonHeath Manchester 10392 Moston Manchester 10903 Broughton Salford 7599 Kersal Salford 7818
7 Blackpool North and Fleetwood BC 80400 Anchorsholme Blackpool 5356 Bispham Blackpool 5199 Greenlands Blackpool 5457 Ingthorpe Blackpool 5277 Norbreck Blackpool 5221 Park Blackpool 5356 Bourne Wyre 5125 Carleton Wyre 3327 CleveleysPark Wyre 4800 Jubilee Wyre 3201 Mount Wyre 2971 Norcross Wyre 2932 Park Wyre 3162 Pharos Wyre 3893 Rossall Wyre 4739 Staina Wyre 4910 Victoria Wyre 4874 Warren Wyre 4600
8 Blackpool South BC 80402 Bloomfield Blackpool 5402 Brunswick Blackpool 5190 Claremont Blackpool 5688 Clifton Blackpool 5281 HawesSide Blackpool 5516 Highfield Blackpool 5212 Layton Blackpool 5379 Marton Blackpool 5468 SquiresGate Blackpool 5189 Stanley Blackpool 5483 Talbot Blackpool 5352 Tyldesley Blackpool 5322 Victoria Blackpool 5265 Warbreck Blackpool 5254 Waterloo Blackpool 5401
9 Bolton North and Darwen CC 73668 Earcroft Blackburnwith Darwen 3281 EastRural Blackburnwith Darwen 1581
85 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
MarshHouse Blackburnwith Darwen 4661 NorthTurtonwithTockholes Blackburnwith Darwen 3518 Sudell Blackburnwith Darwen 4753 Sunnyhurst Blackburnwith Darwen 4464 Whitehall Blackburnwith Darwen 3083 AstleyBridge Bolton 10109 Bradshaw Bolton 8853 BromleyCross Bolton 10587 Crompton Bolton 9921 TongewiththeHaulgh Bolton 8857
10 Bolton South East BC 78550 Breightmet Bolton 9462 Farnworth Bolton 10657 GreatLever Bolton 9318 HarperGreen Bolton 9503 Hulton Bolton 9756 Kearsley Bolton 10398 LittleLeverandDarcyLever Bolton 9702 Rumworth Bolton 9754
11 Bolton West CC 80265 Halliwell Bolton 8811 HeatonandLostock Bolton 10683 HorwichandBlackrod Bolton 9586 HorwichNorthEast Bolton 9772 Smithills Bolton 9903 WesthoughtonNorthandChewMoor Bolton 10956 WesthoughtonSouth Bolton 9592 Atherton Wigan 10962
12 Bootle and North Liverpool BC 74034 Fazakerley Liverpool 11161 Warbreck Liverpool 11198 Derby Sefton 9125 Ford Sefton 8985 Linacre Sefton 7897 Litherland Sefton 8307 NethertonandOrrell Sefton 8807 StOswald Sefton 8554
13 Burnley and Accrington East BC 78413 BankHall Burnley 4339 Brunshaw Burnley 4986 CoalCloughwithDeerplay Burnley 4126 DaneshousewithStoneyholme Burnley 3801 Gannow Burnley 4381 Gawthorpe Burnley 4751 HaptonwithPark Burnley 4727 Lanehead Burnley 4510 Queensgate Burnley 4233 RosegrovewithLowerhouse Burnley 4836 RosehillwithBurnleyWood Burnley 4521 Trinity Burnley 3968 WhittlefieldwithIghtenhill Burnley 4846 Barnfield Hyndburn 3360 Baxenden Hyndburn 3288 Huncoat Hyndburn 3499 Milnshaw Hyndburn 3506 Peel Hyndburn 3182 SpringHill Hyndburn 3553
14 Bury North BC 75352 Church Bury 8504 East Bury 7869 Elton Bury 8513 Moorside Bury 8955 NorthManor Bury 8165 Ramsbottom Bury 9010 Redvales Bury 8850 Tottington Bury 8045 Unsworth Bury 7441
WestNorth 86
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
15 Bury South BC 77568 Besses Bury 8215 Holyrood Bury 8775 PilkingtonPark Bury 7854 RadcliffeEast Bury 8677 RadcliffeNorth Bury 8810 RadcliffeWest Bury 8496 StMaryrsquos Bury 8080 Sedgley Bury 8792 Crumpsall Manchester 9869
16 Carlisle CC 79030 Belah Carlisle 4942 BelleVue Carlisle 4825 Botcherby Carlisle 4569 Brampton Carlisle 3586 Burgh Carlisle 1746 Castle Carlisle 4319 Currock Carlisle 4570 DentonHolme Carlisle 4806 GreatCorbyandGeltsdale Carlisle 1797 Harraby Carlisle 4959 Hayton Carlisle 1703 Irthing Carlisle 1642 LongtownampRockcliffe Carlisle 3418 Lyne Carlisle 1639 Morton Carlisle 4774 StAidans Carlisle 4484 Stanwix Rural Carlisle 3747 Stanwix Urban Carlisle 4791 Upperby Carlisle 4079 Wetheral Carlisle 3780 Yewdale Carlisle 4854
17 Cheadle BC 72826 BramhallNorth Stockport 10542 BramhallSouth Stockport 9831 CheadleandGatley Stockport 11402 CheadleHulmeNorth Stockport 10013 CheadleHulmeSouth Stockport 10469 DavenportandCaleGreen Stockport 10736 HealdGreen Stockport 9833
18 Chester CC 80313 Blacon CheshireWestandChester 9419 City CheshireWestandChester 10188 GrovesandWhitby CheshireWestandChester 10373 HooleandNewton CheshireWestandChester 9422 LedshamandWillaston CheshireWestandChester 9159 MickleTrafford CheshireWestandChester 11066 Overleigh CheshireWestandChester 10738 Upton CheshireWestandChester 9948
19 Chorley CC 79612 AdlingtonandAnderton Chorley 5530 AstleyandBuckshaw Chorley 3275 BrindleandHoghton Chorley 1770 Chisnall Chorley 3259 ChorleyEast Chorley 4751 ChorleyNorthEast Chorley 4833 ChorleyNorthWest Chorley 4792 ChorleySouthEast Chorley 4793 ChorleySouthWest Chorley 5808 Clayton‑le‑Woods andWhittle‑le‑Woods Chorley 5863 Clayton‑le‑WoodsNorth Chorley 5014 Clayton‑le‑Woods WestandCuerden Chorley 3357 Coppull Chorley 4762 EcclestonandMawdesley Chorley 4851 EuxtonNorth Chorley 3552 EuxtonSouth Chorley 3224 HeathCharnockandRivington Chorley 1777
87 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Lostock Chorley 3428 Pennine Chorley 1725 WheeltonandWithnell Chorley 3248
20 Congleton CC 73820 Alsager CheshireEast 9497 CongletonRural CheshireEast 10439 CongletonTownEast CheshireEast 10693 CongletonTownWest CheshireEast 11162 Middlewich CheshireEast 10424 Sandbach CheshireEast 9961 SandbachEastandRode CheshireEast 11644
21 Crewe and Nantwich CC 78845 CreweEast CheshireEast 11744 CreweNorth CheshireEast 10724 CreweSouth CheshireEast 10954 CreweWest CheshireEast 9432 Doddington CheshireEast 12949 Nantwich CheshireEast 11305 Rope CheshireEast 11737
22 Crosby and Maghull CC 77093 Blundellsands Sefton 8910 Church Sefton 8897 Manor Sefton 9825 Molyneux Sefton 10061 Park Sefton 9702 Ravenmeols Sefton 9412 Sudell Sefton 10034 Victoria Sefton 10252
23 Eddisbury CC 74064 Cholmondeley CheshireEast 11441 BoughtonHeathandVicarsCross CheshireWestandChester 10829 Broxton CheshireWestandChester 9640 Eddisbury CheshireWestandChester 9539 Gowy CheshireWestandChester 11418 WinsfordNorthandEast CheshireWestandChester 10813 WinsfordSouthandWest CheshireWestandChester 10384
24 Fylde CC 78304 Ansdell Fylde 3594 Ashton Fylde 3735 Central Fylde 3516 Clifton Fylde 3400 ElswickandLittleEccleston Fylde 1282 Fairhaven Fylde 3584 FreckletonEast Fylde 2560 FreckletonWest Fylde 2330 Heyhouses Fylde 3676 Kilnhouse Fylde 3386 KirkhamNorth Fylde 3231 KirkhamSouth Fylde 2166 Medlar‑with‑Wesham Fylde 2741 NewtonandTreales Fylde 2589 Park Fylde 4284 Ribby‑with‑Wrea Fylde 1188 StJohns Fylde 3525 StLeonards Fylde 3494 SingletonandGreenhalgh Fylde 1164 Staining andWeeton Fylde 2369 WartonandWestby Fylde 3934 Lea Preston 4756 Breck Wyre 2743 Hardhorn Wyre 2927 HighCross Wyre 2931 Tithebarn Wyre 3199
WestNorth 88
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
25 Garston and Halewood BC 80465 HalewoodNorth Knowsley 5098 HalewoodSouth Knowsley 5357 HalewoodWest Knowsley 5066 AllertonandHuntsCross Liverpool 10961 Cressington Liverpool 11240 Greenbank Liverpool 10043 MossleyHill Liverpool 10490 StMichaelrsquos Liverpool 9579 Speke‑Garston Liverpool 12631
26 Hazel Grove and Poynton CC 73091 Poynton CheshireEast 11805 BredburyGreenandRomiley Stockport 10891 HazelGrove Stockport 10921 MarpleNorth Stockport 9818 MarpleSouth Stockport 9584 Offerton Stockport 10365 Stepping Hill Stockport 9707
27 Heywood and Middleton CC 79636 Bamford Rochdale 7805 Castleton Rochdale 7668 EastMiddleton Rochdale 7975 HopwoodHall Rochdale 8314 Norden Rochdale 7794 NorthHeywood Rochdale 7410 NorthMiddleton Rochdale 7949 SouthMiddleton Rochdale 7771 WestHeywood Rochdale 8559 WestMiddleton Rochdale 8391
28 Knowsley BC 79334 Cherryfield Knowsley 5617 KirkbyCentral Knowsley 5008 Longview Knowsley 6281 Northwood Knowsley 5381 PageMoss Knowsley 5081 Park Knowsley 4999 PrescotWest Knowsley 5244 Roby Knowsley 5803 StBartholomews Knowsley 5373 StGabriels Knowsley 5244 StMichaels Knowsley 5230 Shevington Knowsley 5305 Stockbridge Knowsley 4590 Swanside Knowsley 5228 Whitefield Knowsley 4950
29 Lancaster and Wyre CC 75970 Bulk Lancaster 4993 Castle Lancaster 5394 Dukersquos Lancaster 2286 Ellel Lancaster 5249 JohnOrsquoGaunt Lancaster 5808 ScotforthEast Lancaster 3471 ScotforthWest Lancaster 5196 University Lancaster 3842 Greyfriars Preston 5276 PrestonRuralEast Preston 3658 PrestonRuralNorth Preston 5417 Brock Wyre 1934 Cabus Wyre 1316 Calder Wyre 1672 Catterall Wyre 2033 Garstang Wyre 4012 GreatEccleston Wyre 2903 HambletonandStalmine‑with‑Staynall Wyre 3460 Pilling Wyre 1766 Preesall Wyre 4666 Wyresdale Wyre 1618
89 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
30 Leigh CC 77001 AstleyMosleyCommon Wigan 9357 Atherleigh Wigan 8535 GolborneandLowtonWest Wigan 8990 LeighEast Wigan 9184 LeighSouth Wigan 10298 LeighWest Wigan 10771 LowtonEast Wigan 9705 Tyldesley Wigan 10161
31 Liverpool Riverside and Walton BC 80271 Anfield Liverpool 9381 Central Liverpool 11785 County Liverpool 9498 Everton Liverpool 9644 KensingtonandFairfield Liverpool 8454 Kirkdale Liverpool 11173 PrincesPark Liverpool 9289 Riverside Liverpool 11047
32 Liverpool Wavertree BC 74490 BelleVale Liverpool 10885 Childwall Liverpool 11122 Church Liverpool 10618 OldSwan Liverpool 11124 Picton Liverpool 10189 Wavertree Liverpool 10172 Woolton Liverpool 10380
33 Liverpool West Derby BC 73801 Clubmoor Liverpool 11092 Croxteth Liverpool 10458 KnottyAsh Liverpool 9756 NorrisGreen Liverpool 9969 TuebrookandStoneycroft Liverpool 10262 WestDerby Liverpool 11033 YewTree Liverpool 11231
34 Macclesfield CC 80265 BollingtonandDisley CheshireEast 11974 BrokenCross CheshireEast 8846 MacclesfieldForest CheshireEast 10161 MacclesfieldTown CheshireEast 10152 MacclesfieldWest CheshireEast 9773 PrestburyandTytherington CheshireEast 8936 WilmslowNorth CheshireEast 10647 WilmslowSouth CheshireEast 9776
35 Makerfield CC 74856 Abram Wigan 10587 Ashton Wigan 9144 Bryn Wigan 9236 Hindley Wigan 10059 HindleyGreen Wigan 8619 Orrell Wigan 9305 Winstanley Wigan 8871 WorsleyMesnes Wigan 9035
36 Manchester Central BC 77287 AncoatsandClayton Manchester 11219 Ardwick Manchester 11633 Bradford Manchester 10381 CityCentre Manchester 12731 Hulme Manchester 11347 MossSide Manchester 10913 DroylsdenWest Tameside 9063
37 Manchester Gorton and Reddish North BC 74639 Fallowfield Manchester 10531 GortonNorth Manchester 10574 GortonSouth Manchester 11753
WestNorth 90
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Levenshulme Manchester 10733 Longsight Manchester 10451 Rusholme Manchester 10042 ReddishNorth Stockport 10555
38 Manchester Withington BC 73656 Burnage Manchester 10438 Chorlton Manchester 10531 ChorltonPark Manchester 10720 DidsburyEast Manchester 10402 DidsburyWest Manchester 9976 OldMoat Manchester 10641 Withington Manchester 10948
39 Mersey Banks and Weaver CC 78071 CentralandWestminster CheshireWestand Chester 10161 FrodshamandHelsby CheshireWestand Chester 11030 GrangeandRossmore CheshireWestand Chester 10454 SuttonandManor CheshireWestand Chester 10063 Weaver CheshireWestand Chester 9965 Heath Halton 4665 Bromborough Wirral 10730 Eastham Wirral 11003
40 Morecambe and Lunesdale CC 72905 Bare Lancaster 3457 Bolton‑le‑Sands Lancaster 3503 Carnforth Lancaster 3556 Halton‑with‑Aughton Lancaster 1892 Harbour Lancaster 4742 HeyshamCentral Lancaster 3621 HeyshamNorth Lancaster 3719 HeyshamSouth Lancaster 5525 Kellet Lancaster 1748 LowerLuneValley Lancaster 3651 Overton Lancaster 1973 Poulton Lancaster 5471 Silverdale Lancaster 1776 SkertonEast Lancaster 5096 SkertonWest Lancaster 4813 Slyne‑with‑Hest Lancaster 3553 Torrisholme Lancaster 5762 UpperLuneValley Lancaster 1988 Warton Lancaster 1950 Westgate Lancaster 5109
41 Oldham East and Saddleworth CC 80246 Alexandra Oldham 7434 Crompton Oldham 8397 RoytonNorth Oldham 8135 RoytonSouth Oldham 8406 SaddleworthNorth Oldham 7638 SaddleworthSouth Oldham 7900 SaddleworthWestandLees Oldham 8385 Shaw Oldham 7962 StJamesrsquo Oldham 7775 Waterhead Oldham 8214
42 Oldham West BC 80123 ChaddertonCentral Oldham 7921 ChaddertonNorth Oldham 8213 ChaddertonSouth Oldham 8073 Coldhurst Oldham 8514 FailsworthEast Oldham 7941 FailsworthWest Oldham 7777 Hollinwood Oldham 7503 MedlockVale Oldham 8110 StMaryrsquos Oldham 8544 Werneth Oldham 7527
91 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
43 Pendle CC 75713 Briercliffe Burnley 4595 ClivigerwithWorsthorne Burnley 4383 Barrowford Pendle 4092 BlackoandHigherford Pendle 1476 Boulsworth Pendle 4228 Bradley Pendle 4390 Brierfield Pendle 3677 CloverHill Pendle 3693 Coates Pendle 4165 Craven Pendle 4246 Earby Pendle 4813 Foulridge Pendle 1373 HighamandPendleside Pendle 1406 Horsfield Pendle 4004 Marsden Pendle 2577 OldLaundBooth Pendle 1233 Reedley Pendle 4217 Southfield Pendle 3929 VivaryBridge Pendle 4118 Walverden Pendle 2672 Waterside Pendle 3866 Whitefield Pendle 2560
44 Penrith and Solway CC 77313 AllSaints Allerdale 3712 Aspatria Allerdale 2626 Boltons Allerdale 1427 BroughtonStBridgetrsquos Allerdale 3025 Christchurch Allerdale 2884 Crummock Allerdale 1266 DerwentValley Allerdale 1232 Ellen Allerdale 2479 Holme Allerdale 1296 Keswick Allerdale 4036 Marsh Allerdale 1296 Silloth Allerdale 2568 Solway Allerdale 1298 Wampool Allerdale 1369 Warnell Allerdale 1572 Waver Allerdale 1479 Wharrels Allerdale 1265 Wigton Allerdale 4492 Dalston Carlisle 4824 AlstonMoor Eden 1710 Askham Eden 1125 CrosbyRavensworth Eden 1151 Dacre Eden 1163 Eamont Eden 1177 Greystoke Eden 1151 Hartside Eden 1025 Hesket Eden 2450 KirkbyThore Eden 1205 Kirkoswald Eden 1183 Langwathby Eden 1273 Lazonby Eden 1147 LongMarton Eden 988 Morland Eden 1043 PenrithCarleton Eden 1251 PenrithEast Eden 2090 PenrithNorth Eden 3313 PenrithPategill Eden 1113 PenrithSouth Eden 1913 PenrithWest Eden 2333 Shap Eden 1101 Skelton Eden 1229 Ullswater Eden 1033
45 Preston BC 77987 Ashton Preston 3224 Brookfield Preston 5348
WestNorth 92
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Cadley Preston 3730 College Preston 2796 Deepdale Preston 3839 Fishwick Preston 3530 Garrison Preston 5555 Ingol Preston 5500 Larches Preston 5499 MoorPark Preston 3499 Ribbleton Preston 5546 Riversway Preston 4169 StGeorgersquos Preston 3120 StMatthewrsquos Preston 4757 SharoeGreen Preston 5083 TownCentre Preston 5196 Tulketh Preston 5041 University Preston 2555
46 Ribble Valley CC 79395 Netherton Hyndburn 3365 Overton Hyndburn 4988 Rishton Hyndburn 5143 AightonBaileyandChaigley RibbleValley 1166 AlstonandHothersall RibbleValley 2092 BillingtonandOldLangho RibbleValley 2374 BowlandNewtonandSlaidburn RibbleValley 1074 Chatburn RibbleValley 1113 Chipping RibbleValley 1109 Clayton‑le‑Dale withRamsgreave RibbleValley 2127 DerbyandThornley RibbleValley 2463 Dilworth RibbleValley 1998 EdisfordandLowMoor RibbleValley 2269 GisburnRimington RibbleValley 1135 Langho RibbleValley 1924 Littlemoor RibbleValley 2398 Mellor RibbleValley 2242 Primrose RibbleValley 2442 ReadandSimonstone RibbleValley 2134 Ribchester RibbleValley 1338 Sabden RibbleValley 1110 StMaryrsquos RibbleValley 2328 Salthill RibbleValley 2526 WaddingtonandWestBradford RibbleValley 2558 Whalley RibbleValley 2927 Wilpshire RibbleValley 2113 WiswellandPendleton RibbleValley 1098 BamberBridgeEast SouthRibble 3678 BamberBridgeNorth SouthRibble 3609 BamberBridgeWest SouthRibble 3429 CoupeGreenandGregsonLane SouthRibble 2869 SamlesburyandWalton SouthRibble 3251 Walton‑le‑Dale SouthRibble 3005
47 Rochdale CC 77699 BalderstoneandKirkholt Rochdale 7234 CentralRochdale Rochdale 7571 Healey Rochdale 8006 Kingsway Rochdale 8161 LittleboroughLakeside Rochdale 7795 MilkstoneandDeeplish Rochdale 7594 MilnrowandNewhey Rochdale 7981 SmallbridgeandFirgrove Rochdale 7892 SpotlandandFalinge Rochdale 8042 WardleandWestLittleborough Rochdale 7423
48 Rossendale and Oswaldtwistle CC 79479 Altham Hyndburn 4055 Central Hyndburn 3713 Church Hyndburn 3228 Clayton‑le‑Moors Hyndburn 3688 Immanuel Hyndburn 3550 StAndrewrsquos Hyndburn 3408
93 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
StOswaldrsquos Hyndburn 5145 Cribden Rossendale 2842 Eden Rossendale 2868 FacitandShawforth Rossendale 2888 Goodshaw Rossendale 3218 Greenfield Rossendale 4510 Greensclough Rossendale 4544 Hareholme Rossendale 4205 HealeyandWhitworth Rossendale 2966 Helmshore Rossendale 4686 Irwell Rossendale 4053 Longholme Rossendale 4220 Stacksteads Rossendale 2837 Whitewell Rossendale 4419 Worsley Rossendale 4436
49 Salford and Eccles BC 76863 Claremont Salford 8151 Eccles Salford 8804 IrwellRiverside Salford 8525 Langworthy Salford 8995 Ordsall Salford 8197 Pendlebury Salford 9055 SwintonNorth Salford 8654 SwintonSouth Salford 8301 WeasteandSeedley Salford 8181
50 South Ribble CC 78375 BroadOak SouthRibble 3418 Charnock SouthRibble 2805 EarnshawBridge SouthRibble 2756 FaringtonEast SouthRibble 2302 FaringtonWest SouthRibble 3375 GoldenHill SouthRibble 3598 HowickandPriory SouthRibble 3157 Kingsfold SouthRibble 3166 LeylandCentral SouthRibble 2793 LeylandStAmbrose SouthRibble 3671 LeylandStMaryrsquos SouthRibble 2911 LittleHooleandMuchHoole SouthRibble 3302 LongtonandHuttonWest SouthRibble 4635 LostockHall SouthRibble 3005 Lowerhouse SouthRibble 3046 Middleforth SouthRibble 2837 MossSide SouthRibble 2808 NewLongtonandHuttonEast SouthRibble 3643 SevenStars SouthRibble 2857 TardyGate SouthRibble 2856 Whitefield SouthRibble 2879 Hesketh‑with‑Becconsall WestLancashire 3155 NorthMeols WestLancashire 3223 Rufford WestLancashire 1689 Tarleton WestLancashire 4488
51 Southport BC 77555 Ainsdale Sefton 9626 Birkdale Sefton 9926 Cambridge Sefton 9427 Dukersquos Sefton 9730 Harington Sefton 9752 Kew Sefton 9206 Meols Sefton 9785 Norwood Sefton 10103
52 St Helens North BC 75688 BillingeandSeneleyGreen StHelens 9070 Blackbrook StHelens 8492 Earlestown StHelens 8168 Haydock StHelens 9138 MossBank StHelens 8678 Newton StHelens 8575
WestNorth 94
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parr StHelens 8706 Rainford StHelens 6721 Windle StHelens 8140
53 St Helens South and Whiston BC 78612 PrescotEast Knowsley 5514 WhistonNorth Knowsley 5461 WhistonSouth Knowsley 5558 Bold StHelens 7636 Eccleston StHelens 9375 Rainhill StHelens 9118 Sutton StHelens 9185 ThattoHeath StHelens 9550 TownCentre StHelens 8220 WestPark StHelens 8995
54 Stalybridge and Hyde CC 80177 Dukinfield Tameside 9486 DukinfieldStalybridge Tameside 8737 HydeGodley Tameside 8485 HydeNewton Tameside 9974 HydeWerneth Tameside 8850 Longdendale Tameside 7864 Mossley Tameside 8665 Stalybridge North Tameside 9565 Stalybridge South Tameside 8551
55 Stockport BC 73205 BredburyandWoodley Stockport 10843 BrinningtonandCentral Stockport 9934 EdgeleyandCheadleHeath Stockport 10478 HeatonsNorth Stockport 10401 HeatonsSouth Stockport 10755 Manor Stockport 10460 ReddishSouth Stockport 10334
56 Stretford and Urmston BC 73935 WhalleyRange Manchester 10597 Clifford Trafford 7324 DavyhulmeEast Trafford 7737 DavyhulmeWest Trafford 7574 Flixton Trafford 8410 GorseHill Trafford 7921 Longford Trafford 8551 Stretford Trafford 7758 Urmston Trafford 8063
57 Tatton CC 77371 Alderley CheshireEast 10420 Bucklow CheshireEast 10057 Knutsford CheshireEast 10291 Abbey CheshireWestandChester 9815 Marbury CheshireWestandChester 10550 NorthwichEastandShakerley CheshireWestandChester 10275 NorthwichWest CheshireWestandChester 12595 Daresbury Halton 3368
58 Wallasey BC 77905 LeasoweandMoretonEast Wirral 10653 Liscard Wirral 11096 MoretonWestandSaughallMassie Wirral 10794 NewBrighton Wirral 10807 Seacombe Wirral 10425 Upton Wirral 12173 Wallasey Wirral 11957
59 Warrington North BC 79915 BewseyandWhitecross Warrington 8079 Birchwood Warrington 8179 BurtonwoodandWinwick Warrington 4998 Culcheth GlazeburyandCroft Warrington 8523
95 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
FairfieldandHowley Warrington 8891 Orford Warrington 7790 PoplarsandHulme Warrington 7606 PoultonNorth Warrington 8101 PoultonSouth Warrington 5282 RixtonandWoolston Warrington 7428 Westbrook Warrington 5038
60 Warrington South BC 78317 HaltonView Halton 5184 Appleton Warrington 8343 GrappenhallandThelwall Warrington 7749 GreatSankeyNorth Warrington 5072 GreatSankeySouth Warrington 8246 HattonStrettonandWalton Warrington 2448 LatchfordEast Warrington 5886 LatchfordWest Warrington 5291 Lymm Warrington 9484 PenkethandCuerdley Warrington 6892 Stockton Heath Warrington 5014 WhittleHall Warrington 8708
61 West Cumbria CC 79471 Clifton Allerdale 1244 Dalton Allerdale 1452 Ellenborough Allerdale 2778 Ewanrigg Allerdale 2517 Flimby Allerdale 1244 Harrington Allerdale 2545 Moorclose Allerdale 3484 MossBay Allerdale 3278 Netherhall Allerdale 2308 StJohnrsquos Allerdale 4075 StMichaelrsquos Allerdale 3806 Seaton Allerdale 3958 Stainburn Allerdale 1400 Arlecdon Copeland 1242 Beckermet Copeland 2413 Bransty Copeland 3963 CleatorMoorNorth Copeland 3232 CleatorMoorSouth Copeland 2199 Distington Copeland 3220 EgremontNorth Copeland 3417 EgremontSouth Copeland 3054 Ennerdale Copeland 838 Frizington Copeland 2046 Gosforth Copeland 1187 Harbour Copeland 3491 Hensingham Copeland 3245 Hillcrest Copeland 2108 Kells Copeland 1991 Mirehouse Copeland 3463 Moresby Copeland 1082 StBees Copeland 1356 Sandwith Copeland 1835
62 West Lancashire CC 73028 Ashurst WestLancashire 4827 AughtonandDownholland WestLancashire 4533 AughtonPark WestLancashire 3179 Bickerstaffe WestLancashire 1752 BirchGreen WestLancashire 2995 BurscoughEast WestLancashire 3346 BurscoughWest WestLancashire 3938 Derby WestLancashire 4454 Digmoor WestLancashire 3007 Halsall WestLancashire 1743 Knowsley WestLancashire 4420 Moorside WestLancashire 2726 Newburgh WestLancashire 1640
WestNorth 96
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
Parbold WestLancashire 3131 Scarisbrick WestLancashire 3030 Scott WestLancashire 4527 SkelmersdaleNorth WestLancashire 3062 SkelmersdaleSouth WestLancashire 5006 Tanhouse WestLancashire 3329 UpHolland WestLancashire 4969 Wrightington WestLancashire 3414
63 Westmorland and Lonsdale CC 75286 Appleby(Appleby) Eden 1084 Appleby(Bongate) Eden 1370 Brough Eden 1031 KirkbyStephen Eden 2030 OrtonwithTebay Eden 1103 Ravenstonedale Eden 763 Warcop Eden 1090 AmblesideandGrasmere SouthLakeland 3206 ArnsideandBeetham SouthLakeland 3571 Burneside SouthLakeland 1589 BurtonandHolme SouthLakeland 3056 CartmelandGrangeWest SouthLakeland 1580 ConistonandCrakeValley SouthLakeland 1315 Crooklands SouthLakeland 1783 GrangeNorth SouthLakeland 1848 GrangeSouth SouthLakeland 1549 Hawkshead SouthLakeland 1452 Holker SouthLakeland 1626 KendalCastle SouthLakeland 1483 KendalFarCross SouthLakeland 1669 KendalFell SouthLakeland 1651 KendalHeronHill SouthLakeland 1528 KendalHighgate SouthLakeland 1652 KendalKirkland SouthLakeland 1631 KendalMintsfeet SouthLakeland 1622 KendalNether SouthLakeland 1655 KendalOxenholmeandNatland SouthLakeland 1688 KendalParks SouthLakeland 1722 KendalRomney SouthLakeland 1722 KendalStonecross SouthLakeland 1623 KendalStrickland SouthLakeland 1518 KendalUnderley SouthLakeland 1668 Levens SouthLakeland 1712 LythValley SouthLakeland 1878 Milnthorpe SouthLakeland 1682 SedberghandKirkbyLonsdale SouthLakeland 4866 Staveley‑in‑Cartmel SouthLakeland 1562 Staveley‑in‑Westmorland SouthLakeland 1712 Whinfell SouthLakeland 1532 Windermere ApplethwaiteandTroutbeck SouthLakeland 1628 Windermere BownessNorth SouthLakeland 1638 Windermere BownessSouth SouthLakeland 1578 WindermereTown SouthLakeland 1620
64 Widnes and Runcorn BC 79333 Appleton Halton 4773 Beechwood Halton 3083 Birchfield Halton 4983 Broadheath Halton 4867 Ditton Halton 5404 Farnworth Halton 5663 Grange Halton 4971 Hale Halton 1561 HaltonBrook Halton 4810 HaltonCastle Halton 4496 HaltonLea Halton 4628 HoughGreen Halton 5304 Kingsway Halton 4973 Mersey Halton 5053 NortonNorth Halton 4917
97 WestNorth
proposalsRevised
Constituency Ward Districtboroughcitycounty Electorate
NortonSouth Halton 4611 Riverside Halton 3615 WindmillHill Halton 1621
65 Wigan CC 76779 AspullNewSpringsWhelley Wigan 10161 Douglas Wigan 9694 Ince Wigan 8806 Pemberton Wigan 9789 ShevingtonwithLowerGround Wigan 9349 Standish withLangtree Wigan 9745 WiganCentral Wigan 9276 WiganWest Wigan 9959
66 Wirral Deeside CC 77236 NestonandParkgate CheshireWestandChester 11659 Clatterbridge Wirral 11705 GreasbyFrankbyandIrby Wirral 11546 Heswall Wirral 10968 HoylakeandMeols Wirral 10439 PensbyandThingwall Wirral 10554 WestKirbyandThurstaston Wirral 10365
67 Worsley and Eccles South CC 73409 Barton Salford 8498 BoothstownandEllenbrook Salford 7638 Cadishead Salford 7758 Irlam Salford 7218 LittleHulton Salford 8857 WalkdenNorth Salford 8445 WalkdenSouth Salford 8174 Winton Salford 8576 Worsley Salford 8245
68 Wythenshawe and Sale East BC 75602 Baguley Manchester 10608 Brooklands Manchester 10300 Northenden Manchester 10733 Sharston Manchester 11209 WoodhousePark Manchester 9594 Brooklands Trafford 7908 Priory Trafford 7762 SaleMoor Trafford 7488
WestNorth 98
Boundary CommissionforEngland35 GreatSmithStreetLondon SW1P 3BQ
Tel 02072761102
Email informationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
Website wwwconsultationboundarycommissionforenglandindependentgovuk
copy Crowncopyright2012
You mayre‑usethisinformation(notincludinglogos)free ofchargeinanyformatormediumundertheterms oftheOpenGovernmentLicence
To viewthislicencevisitwwwnationalarchivesgovukdocopen‑government‑licence or writetotheInformationPolicyTeamThe NationalArchivesKewLondonTW94DUoremail psinationalarchivesgsigovuk
Any enquiriesregardingthisdocumentshouldbesent tousatinformationbcommenglandxgsigovuk
This documentcanalsobeviewedonourwebsiteatwwwconsultationboundarycommissionforengland independentgovuk
The materialusedinthispublicationisconstitutedfrom 75consumerwasteand25virginfibre
- North West mdash Revised proposals
- Contents
- Revised proposals summary
-
- Who we are and what we do
- 2013 Review
- Revised proposals
- What are the revised proposals for the North West
- How to have your say
-
- 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England
- 2 Background to the review
-
- The rules in the legislation
- The use of the regions used for European elections
- Timetable for the review
-
- 3 Revised proposals for the North West
- Report by the Assistant Commissioners on the North West
-
- Introduction
- Overview
- Cheshire and the Wirral
- Greater Manchester
- Merseyside (less the Wirral)
- Cumbria
- Conclusions and recommendations
-
- 4 How to have your say
-
- How can you give us your views
- What do we want views on
-
- Annex Revised proposals for constituencies including wards and electorates
-