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

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

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

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

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