Local Government Boundary Commission For Report No. 346 LOCAL GOVERNi-D-JNT

BOUNDARY COAIWISSIOK

FOR ESGLAHD

REPORT NO. LOCAL OOVKRKMEIJT ^OUriDAIJY COMMISSION FOii ENGLAND

CHAIRMAH Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Mr J H Rankin QC

MEMBERS

Lady Boxvden Mr J T Brockbank

Mr R R Thornton CB DL

Mr T) P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Secretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF IN THE COUNTY OF WEST

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan district of the in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that city.

2_. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 27 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to , copies of which were circulated to County Council;, parish councils in the district, Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies.

3. Leeds City Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No. 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We there'fore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment.

4- .Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 requireethat in metropolitan districts elections shall be by thirds, .Section 6(2)(b) of the Act requires that every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning a number of councillors divisible by three. 5. Oh 30 April 19?6, Leeds City Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide 'the area of the City into 36 wards each returning 3 councillors to produce a council of 108 members. On 21 May 1976, the City Council withdrew the scheme and, on 10 September 1976f submitted a scheme providing for 33 wards each returning 3 councillors to form a council of 99 members. j « 6. We considered the City Council's draft scheme together with related comments. We noted that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the scheme on the grounds that in certain areas local ties had been broken; but we saw no way of meeting these objections without creating unacceptable inequality of representation. We decided to transfer a parish from one proposed ward to another, to change the name of one of the proposed wards and to accept minor boundary adjustments suggested by Ordnance Survey. Subject to these modifications we decided to base our draft proposals on the draft scheme submitted by Leeds City Council.

7. On 12 July 1977 we issued our draft proposals a"nd these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. Leeds City Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated .and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 6 September 1977.

8. We received 4 petitions and about 250 letters in response to our draft proposals. Respondents included Leeds City Council, West Yorkshire County Council, parish and town councils, residents1 and ratepayers' associations, amenity groups and committees, trades unions, a womens guild, local political parties and associations, and individual members of the public. *

9. In view of these comments we decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request,.Mr S Astin MBE was appointed an Assistant Commissioner. He was asked to hold a local meeting and to report to us. Notice of the meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented on them, and was published locally.

10. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Civic Theatre, Leeds, on 13 and 14 December 1977 and inspected certain areas of the district. A copy of his report to us is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 11. In the light of the discussion at the meeting and his inspection of the areas involved, the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the metropolitan district of the City of Leeds be divided into 33 wards, each to return 3 councillors, as outlined and named in paragraph 7 of his report.

12. We have reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. The Assistant Commissioner's recommendations entailed some considerable adjustment of the detail of the ward pattern of our draft proposals, v/e noted that in making these recommendations he had sought so far as possible to reflect local wishes, including those expressed by the political parties, to distinguish between the rural and urban areas of the City, and to maintain identifiable communities within single wards. We further noted that the standards of representation which evolved from the Assistant Commissioner's recommendations - based, as they were, on more-up-to-date electoral figuree - were better overall than those of our draft proposals. V/e concluded that we should accept the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioner, and subject to some minor boundary adjustments suggested to us by Ordnance Survey, we have formulated our final proposals accordingly.

13. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3-

FU3LICATIOJI

14. In accordance with Section 60 (5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Leeds City Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without the map) are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments.

L.S.

Signed:

NICHOLAS MORRISON

JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)

PHYLLIS BOWDEN

TYRRELL BROCKBANK

G E CHERRY

D P HARRISON

R R THORNTON

LESLIE GRIMSHAW (Secretary)

' 15 MARCH 1979 SCHEDULE 1

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION Review of Electoral Arrangements'- City of Leeds

In accordance with the instructions contained in the Commission's letter of 17th November 1977, I conducted a Local Meeting as Assistant Commissioner at the Civic Theatre, Leeds, on Tuesday and Wednesday the 13th arid 14-th December 1977, to hear and to discuss representations with regard to the future electoral arrangements in the City of Leeds - a Metropolitan District in the County of west Yorkshire. 1. ATTENDANCES . I attach as Appendix "A" a list showing the names and addresses of the persons attending the meeting and where appropriate the organisations they represented. 2. COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS The Commission's Draft Proposals for the City of Leeds set out in the Commission's letter to the City Council of 12th July 1977 proposed 33 wards returning; 99 Councillors (3 Councillors per ward).' Prior to the consideration and formulation of the Draft Proposals the Commission had received, first, a draft scheme providing for 36 wards each returning 3 Councillors (a total- Council of 108 members) this being submitted by the City Council in April 1976, the Council then being controlled by a combined Labour and Liberal majority. This suggested provision of 36 wards satisfactorily fitted in wii.h initial ideas of the vjest Yorkshire County Council for there to be a County Council comprising 99 members (Leeds having 36 County Councillors representing the City Council area). Subsequently, however, following the hay 1976 City elections, in which the Conservative i-yrty gained overall control on the City Council, the Council decided to withdraw its 108 members scheme and on 10th September 1976 the Council submitted a new scheme for 33 wards (99 members). In the meantime, there had been discussions between representatives of the five Districts making up the ,.est Yorkshire County and also the County Council, to which representatives of the Boundary Commission had been invited, and at this/neeting an alternative plan emerged for a County Council of ty'd members (of whom the Leeds City area would elect 33 County Councillors). Subsequently, the City of Leeds Labour Party submitted an alternative 99 members scheme sncl this was followed by the re-submission by County Councillor C. Greenfield of the City Council's original lOo members scheme, and then later the labour Party withdrew their own alternative 99 members scheme, in favour of the original r.cheme for the larger Counci.1 Kiufc of 10*; mumbu.rs. The Commission also had before them correspondence from various organisations and persons both in favour of, and objecting to, the various alternative schemes which they had received. The Commission noted chat there was some considerable dissatisfaction with the draft scheme submitted by the Council for 33 wards (99 members) for in certain areas there were alleged breaking of local ties, but the Commission felt that they could not meet the objections without detriment to the high standard of electoral equality the Council had achieved. The Commission therefore formulated its Draft Proposals on the lines of the City Council's 99 members draft scheme but made the following modifications:- (1) The name of the Allerton Ward was changed to Ward; (2) The Parish of was transferred from the proposed Ward to the proposed Berwick rt'ard (to meet the wishes of Thorner Parish Council); and (3) Thirty six minor boundary realignments suggested by the Ordnance Survey were adopted. It should be noted that at the present time the City has a Council of 96 members (from 32 wards) with a 1976 electorate of 542,100 (an average of 564? electors per Councillor). The Draft Proposals envisaged a 1981 projected electorate of 5^-7 >072 (average 5526 electors per Councillor). The Labour Party's 108 members alternative scheme envisaged a 1981 projected electorate of 558*600 (average 5172 electors per Councillor) and the Labour Party's alternative 99 members scheme envisaged a 1981 electorate of 5^7i072 (average 5526 electors per Councillor). . . OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS received before Local Meeting Prior to the holding of the Local Meeting some 230 written comments had been received in response to the Draft Proposals (including 3 petitions of respectively 1,300, 3*500 and 2,300 signatures) and it must be said that, whilst some 20 were in support of the uraft Proposals as a whole, or in support of particular ward proposals, the large bulk of the comments objected to the Draft Proposals as a whole, or as to particular areas or particular wards, or suggested either the Labour Party's alternative scheme for 99 members or their scheme for 108 members. There were also a few comments objecting to these latter alternative schemes. Support for the proposals came from the Leeds City Council and Conservative Party Organisations, and from some Parish areas as to particular ward proposals affecting those areas. Objections were numerous and in many cases strongly worded. These covered many aspects of the proposals and included allegations of formulating v/ards for political expediency; unsatisfactory drawing of boundaries by which local ties would be broken; existing communities divided; and further comment that little attention had been paid to natural geographical boundaries. In this respect, the' strongest objections came from the area - as to the severance of llorsley Woodside from the remainder of Horsforth. Other strong objections were made as to the Rothwell area - as to the division of the old Urban District area into three separate wards and the division of the central area of Rothwell; as to the area - with the proposed split of Yeadon into separate wards; as to the Churwell area (Florley) and its proposed . inclusion in the Beeston Ward; as to the ward patterns for the , Bramley, , and Beeston areas; as to the joining of "country" parish areas with outer segments of the Leeds "City" area;, and as to some of the "outer" wards comprising parish areas. At a late stage a number of comments were received,:mainly . from Labour and Liberal Groups throughout the City supporting the 108 members scheme, an additional supporting comment being that proposals for Manchester (which had an electorate of some 180,000 less than the electorate of Leeds) had suggested a Council of 102 members, and therefore it was thought that Leeds should have a ' greater number of members, namely 108 members. SUBMISSIONS made at the Local Meeting (1) Introduction In making my preliminary introductions, I said that I hoped the meeting would be an informal one without the submission of formal evidence and cross-examination and that the emphasis would be on discussion of the various problems and proposals. I" explained that 1 had already, in the previous week, spent an appreciable time in visiting various parts of the City (particularly some of those parts which were likely to come up in discussion at the meeting) and that it was my intention after the meeting again to visit variousparts of the City and particularly those areas which had been referred to in our discussions. 1 asked the meeting to agree that for the second visit'1 could be accompanied by a member of the staff of the Chief Executive. I explained that it would later be my duty to write a report • on what transpired at the meeting and in that report I would give my assessment of the various arguments put forward and finally .it would be my duty to make firm recommendations as to the various wards which should be formulated for the City. Having regard to some of the comments and representations made, mainly by private persons, as to the necessity of carrying out this ward review, 1 pointed out that in the existing scheme there was very uneven representation (for example, in one ward returning 5 Councillors there was an electorate of only 9,429 (entitlement 1.72; whereas another ward returning 5 Councillors had' an electorate of 25,797 (entitlement 4-.72)). It was obviously necessary to formulate a new scheme bringing about a better equality of representation ward by ward. 1 felt that it was also wise to inform the meeting of some of the rules laid down in the Local Government Act 1972 as to the carrying out of the present electoral review. I first referred to Section 6 of the Act which provided that "every Metropolitan. .District shall be divided into wards each returning a number of Councillors divisible by uhree".

- 3 - 1 pointed out that the requirement as to the ratio of electors to Councillors was to be regarded as a primary fule which the Commission were required to observe, whereas the other rules as to identifiable boundaries and the breaking of local ties, were somewhat secondary in that the Commission had to have regard to these rules. I then reminded the meeting that under the Local Government Act 1972 the City of Leeds in the Metropolitan County area of West Yorkshire was made up of the County Borough (City) of Leeds; the Boroughs of Morley and ; the Urban Districts of Aireborough, , Horsforth, Gtley and Rothwellj eleven Parishes from Tadcaster Rural District; thirteen Parishes from Rural District; and four Parishes from Wharfedale Rural District. I then referred to the submission of Draft Schemes by the City Council and that subsequently the Commission issued its Draft Proposals on the 4-th July 1977- These Draft Proposals were placed on deposit in Leeds and comments and representations were invited. I then referred to the numerous comments and representations which had been received, as a result of which the Commission had decided to hold this public meeting. 1 outlined a suggested programme of proceedings with the business of the meeting, commencing with general submissions and discussions as to the Draft Proposals and alternative ward' schemes and also as to the suggested size of the City Council - then proceeding to the consideration of individual areas in the City - and then concluding with other miscellaneous submissions and final discussion. (2) Warding Arrangements Generally 1 suggested that it might first be preferable for the meeting to receive a statement from the City Planning Officer giving up-to- date information as to housing and clearance programmes, etc. leading to an up-to-date estimate now in 1977 of the likely 19$1 electorates in the various wards as set out in the Draft Proposals^ (bearing in mind that the previous 1981 electorate estimates were submitted by the Council to the Commission in 1976). I then called Mr. Hugh Thornton, Group Leader (Strategy, Research and Intelligence; in the "Planning Department of the Leeds City Council. Mr. Thornton said that the estimates previously submitted had been based on town planning and housing policies as known at the end of 1975- It was 'estimated that land allocated for new housing development within the District would run out over the next few years and much of this land was contained in a small number of large sites, namely those at Colton, , Barwick, Stourton, Sharp Lane (Middleton), Belle Isle (Middleton), Hopewell Farm (Norley) and Westerton Road (Norley). He said that since the City Council's scheme was submitted to the Commission there had been changes in Council policy which affected these sites, for example, it was now not anticipated that there would be house completions on the Colton site by 1981, whereas it was thought there would be an increased number of house completions on .the Sharp Lane, Whinmoor, Barwick, Stourton and Belle Isle sites. In 1975/1976 no estimate was available as to house completions on the Hopewell Farm and Westerton Road sites in Morley, but now it was thought that about one-third of the capacity of these sites would be completed by 1981. Mr. Thornton went on to say that, as a result of these new estimates and information as to outstanding planning permissions and likely private house building, he had calculated new projected electorates for 1981 for the various wards in the Commission's Draft Proposals, although the total 1981 projected electorate for the City was not changed and remained at 547,072, giving an average of 5526 electors per Councillor for a 99 members Council. Mr. Thornton then submitted a statement showing the new forecast electorates for 1981 for the various wards and, whilst in the main these showed no appreciable difference in the majority of the wards, there was a major increase of some 2,070 electors in the proposed Hiddleton riard, giving a ward electorate of 19,4-52 (entitlement 5-52) and there was a decrease of 1,04-6 in the Ward reducing the electorate to 15,877 (entitlement 2.87). The electorate in the Wetherby Ward had been reduced to 14,982 (entitlement 2.71) and this was the lowest of the ward electorates. I then asked Mr. Thornton if it would be possible for him to supply me with a breakdown of these new projected 1981 electorate figures for all of the various polling districts of the whole City area, for 1 felt that this would be required'to assist me in the consideration of any likely changes of the ward pattern as a result of the representations already made and the representations likely to be made at this meeting. Mr. Thornton said he would supply these figures for the polling districts as soon as possible. Note: These were supplied to me within a few days after the meeting. When these were handed to me Mr. Thornton informed me that the further work on the breakdown of the figures into polling districts had revealed some errors which had been corrected in the new figures he then supplied. The main differences from the figures already given showed that the Barwick Ward, in the Draft Proposals, now had a 1981 forecast electorate of 19,035 (an increase of 1,269) which gave an entitlement of $.44; the Bramley and Armley Ward was now estimated at 19,795 electors (increase of some 3,000) (3-58); City Ward now 20,532 (increase some 3,4-00) (3.7& and Middleton Ward now 20,677 (increase of some 1,200) (3-74-); and Ward was now reduced to 15,74-8 electors (reduction 1,650) (2.85); and Ward reduced to 15,605 (reduction 1,900) (2.82) - Whetherby Ward now had a forecast electorate of only 14,640 (2.65). Councillor Peter Sparling, Deputy Leader of the Leeds City Council, said that the proposed ward boundaries in Leeds had been the subject of much discussion since the first communication was received from the Commission. Originally, differing views had been put forward as to the number of wards that should be formed, but following a meeting of representatives of all the five Districts

- 5 - of the West Yorkshire County and the County Council with the Chairman of the Boundary Commission, it became clear that the only- practicable solution was 33 wards, as this fitted into an overall package for the five Districts of West Yorkshire and the County Council. In this way Leeds would have one County Councillor and three District Councillors per ward. This he felt was a very important point and, working on the basis of 33 wards and 99 Councillors, the Council had submitted a scheme to the Commission which, they felt, strictly complied with the criteria in the Local Government Act 1972 - namely that equality of representation was the oveniding consideration - and he felt that all the wards in that scheme had electorates within an allowable tolerance, which he understood was about He then said that the main physical feature in Leeds was the and in the scheme which the Council submitted, and which had formed the basis of the Draft Proposals, no ward crossed this River. Apart from the obvious physical dividing barrier of a big river crossed only by a very few bridges, there was also the psychological division which it caused. He said that none of the wards in the former Leeds County Borough Council area crossed the River, nor did any of those in the other areas which joined with the County Borough in 197^ - in addition when the very ad hoc ward rearrangement took place in 1973 it was perhaps significant that even then the Riverremained unbreached. It was, therefore, the Council's firm view that the starting point of any scheme was that all wards must be wholly on one side of the River or the other. The Commission, in making their Draft Proposals, had made very few alterations to the Council's draft scheme and the Council had now resolved to accept the Proposals, not because they were perfect but because they were considered to be a fair attempt to solve an enormously difficult problem - no-one should underestimate the difficulties of producing an acceptable scheme for such a large area as Leeds. He then went on to refer to the many comments and representations which had been made against the Proposals, a large proportion of which related to alleged "destruction" of communities and he submitted, bhatapart from the River Aire and such places as Chevin (the hill between Otley and Aireborough) there were few physical barriers in the largely urban area - one suburb was very much like its neighbour and it was very difficult to tell where one area ended and another area began. (To this latter statement there were many cries of dissent.) He said that a so-called community did not .cease to exist if it became part of two different wards, its identity remained the same and, in fact, it might be said that it could benefit by having twice the number of Councillors to represent it on the Council. He wanted to stress that such decisions as to where a child went to school or a green belt policy was totally unaffected by ward boundaries. He felt that the most important point was where people voted. This was what mattered and there was no intention of changing polling stations, except where it would make things more convenient for voters - not vice versa.

- 6 - Finally, Councillor oparling offered all the assistance possible to me from the Council''s Officers in the difficult task which he felt 1 had before me. Mr. Norman Jones, of Counsel, representing the Leeds Labour Party, then referred to the very substantial number of objections which had been received to the Draft Proposals. It was true that there were a few letters of support but they were almost exclusively from Conservative organisations or persons. The main bulk of the comments and representations were in opposition to the Draft Proposals and these came from many organisations, Liberal, Labour, even one Conservative Association, and many other Community Associations and private persons. He said that, originally, the Leeds City Council, then controlled by a Labour and Liberal majority, had submitted a scheme for $6 wards and 108 Councillors. It was known that this number fell outside the guidelines for Metropolitan Districts, but Leeds was the second largest Metropolitan District in the country arid it was later known that the Commission had approved for Manchester a scheme with 102 Councillors, this being also outside the guidelines, and it was understood that for Birmingham there would be a scheme for 138 Councillors. Leeds was larger than Manchester and, therefore, it seemed appropriate that a scheme for 108 Councillors would be acceptable. After the elections of Flay 1976, when the control of the Council changed to the Conservative Party, the Conservatives withdrew this scheme and submitted a scheme for 33 wards and 99 Councillors. The Labour Party then submitted another plan for 99 Councillors which was an amendment of the Conservative plan and which the Labour Party thought was a fair alternative. He said that it was still the view of the Labour Party that their scheme for 108 Councillors would be fairest all round. It was realised, however, that because of the present position in relation to the other Districts in West Yorkshire and the County Council, a scheme for 99 Councillors might be preferred, but the Labour Party wanted to say that, in their view, a scheme for 108 Councillors for Leeds would be better. Mr. Jones then went on to list main reasons for which the Labour Party opposed the Draft Proposals (which he preferred to call the Conservative Scheme). The scheme ruthlessly ignored existing communities and physical boundaries. Without doubt, existing communities were being broken up arid local, ties broken. Perhaps it was right to say that the drawing of a ward boundary might not; affect communities at the present time, but in the Labour Party's view community areas would in time lose their identity. What was valid todsy might not be valid tomorrow. Furthermore, the scheme ignored the motorways, as potential ward boundaries. Communities were important, for the ordinary man in the street, the elector, wished to identify his Councillor with his community, not some area drawn on a map. He realised that numerical equality in each of the wards was a primary requirement, but he claimed that community of interest was also very important indeed.

- 7 - He then referred to the political aspect of the Conservative scheme, for the Labour Party felt that any scheme should be able to elect a Council which reflected the political attitude of the electorate, otherwise such a scheme would be undemocratic and generally unacceptable. The Labour Party considered that the scheme now under consideration was primarily designed to aid the Conservative Party. They considered that the Labour Party's alternative scheme was a fairer scheme to maintain political balance. Mr. Jones then went on to give details of election result figures in the six Parliamentary Constituencies of which parts of Leeds formed part and he said that it was important that this political balance, as shown by these results, should be continued in any ward scheme which was formulated for the City. No scheme should give political advantage to one party or the other and he claimed t;hat the Labour Party's scheme was the fairer. Finally, he commented on individual wards and the likely political effect of having wards as framed by the Conservative Party in their scheme and which now formed the Draft Proposals. Councillor M. J. Meadowcroft, Leader of the Liberal Group on the Leeds City Council, said that in the earlier discussions about the draft scheme of wards, it had been agreed unanimously that application should be made for a Council larger than the present Council, and he said that the first scheme for 36 wards and 108 Councillors had been supported by both the Labour Party and the Liberal i'arty. He felt that a ward with as many as 16,500 electors was a very large ward, and smaller wards would be better. He then stressed the importance of forming wards comprising whole community areas, for he felt that only in that way would it be possible to raise and maintain local government interest. He instanced non-political voters who would only be interested if the ward comprised the community area. He felt that the requirement not to break local ties was not just an optional extra, it was a most crucial point. Electors certainly had more interest if Councillors represented community areas than a block of property on a map. He also felt that if Councillors represented community .areas candidates for election would be more easily found. He also pointed out the difficulties of representing a split area. He said that the Conservatives, in formulating their plan, had been obsessed by the i^iver Aire as a boundary. He felt that there were other boundaries and barriers within the City which posed similar difficult problems, e.g. the motorways. He referred to the requirement to obtain equality of representation in each ward, but said that damage to communities was only permissible .if it was absolutely impossible to bring the whole of the community within a ward. Mr. Eric Cowin, Branch Officer of Leeds NALGO, said that his association represented some 75$ °f tne members of the City staff and, whilst they had no wish to make any party political proposition, his members were anxious to see a ward pattern for Leeds which would assist in the efficient running of the City. He felt that some of the changes proposed were likely.to cause

- 8 - disharmony and his members wished to support communities who wanted to ensure that their identities were retained. He felt that, in formulating the ward pattern, it was necessary to get the base right, i.e. to identify the various communities. His members could very much understand the logic of community areas wishing to channel back to their CounciUlwjtheir particular problems. Hoiioped that the new scheme would maintain community boundaries as far as possible. Mr. R. Hughes-Rowlands, Conservative Agent and Hon. Secretary of the Leeds Metropolitan District Conservative Local Government Advisory Committee, referred to the work on the preparation of the plan which had been made available to the Conservative Group of the City Council and subsequently approved by the Council and submitted'to the Commission as the Council's draft scheme. He said that the work had been done without hurry and with care to follow the Commission's guidelines as to electoral equality, it being understood that there was a tolerance of some 6-j# from the average electorate figure for each ward. He claimed that the draft scheme and the Draft Proposals kept within the Commission's guidelines, there being possibly two exceptions just outside the percentage tolerance. He said, wherever possible, existing ward patterns or polling district patterns had been used and, in referring to the Labour Party's allegations that the plan had brought forward very many comments and objections, he said that the draft scheme and the Draft Proposals had been placed on deposit and had been publicised throughout the City, whereas the alternative plan submitted by the Labour Party and others had not received this same wide publicity. He believed that if the Labour Party plan had been widely publicised, that would have brought forward an equal number of objecting comments from organisations and people in the City. He referred to the Labour Party's plan for a Council of 108 members and the meeting with representatives of the District Councils in the West Yorkshire County and the County Council, from which it had seemed practicable to make a plan of 33 wards returning 99 Councillors. There was then some argument between individual members of the Council of the three political parties as to the differing views of the five Metropolitan Districts and the County Council when the deliberations as to the possible size of the County Council took place. It was, however, agreed that ultimately a County Council pattern had emerged under which there should be 92 County Councillors, of which the Leeds City area would return 33 County Councillors. At this stage, then, I asked Mr. Norman Jones and the Labour Party if they were now able to decide whether they were presenting to me their scheme for 108 members or their alternative scheme for 99 members, and in reply I'-ir. Norman Jones, said that, having regard to what had been already said, it seemed appropriate that the Labour Party should now withdraw the 108 members scheme and press for their alternative scheme for 99 members. This, therefore, somewhat simplified the issue before us.

- 9 - Mr. Peter G. J. White, Secretary and Agent of the North East Leeds Conservative Association, referred to the many comments and criticisms about "splitting communities" and said this had become rather emotive. All we were doing was to deal with boundaries for wards, boundaries which had no more physical meaning than lines drawn on a map for the purposes of democracy and administration, throughout the City of Leeds there were over 300 different names of townships, villages and districts and clearly all these names could not find expression in the names of wards. These townships, villages and districts would, however, continue in being. Furthermore, communities in large cities were notoriously difficult to define, whereas ward boundaries had to be precise. If a community found itself split by a ward boundary, then surely that community would have twice as many Councillors concerned in its welfare. Perhaps these Councillors would come from different parties and any matter of vital interest to the community would have the interest and concern of both sides of the Council Chamber. He then also referred to the publicity given to the draft scheme and the Draft Proposals which had generated-letters of protest from certain areas of the City and said that he had no doubt that if similar publicity had been given to the Labour Party's alternative 99 members scheme, that scheme would have generated at least an equal number, and perhaps more, letters of protest. This then concluded our discussions on the general aspects of the warding arrangements. (3) Parish areas within the City area These areas are situated along the northern 'and eastern outer areas of the City and it was decided first to look at the Otley and Wharfedale area, then Wetherby, then the Barwick area, and finally the area. Councillor Richard D. Good, Town Councillor and Town Mayor of Otley, spoke to the representations submitted by the Otley Town Council in which the Council declared its support for electoral wards which did not split communities and which did not link areas which were geographically remote. He said his Council could not support the proposal to add Harewood (part) and East Keswick to the existing Otley and Wharfedale Ward, for these areas were remote from the Otley area and had no link with Otley. In his view, it was absolutely essential that a ward should be an identifiable community area, for only in that way was a proper electoral response obtained. His Council asked that the existing Otley and Whariedale Ward should remain as it was. If, however, it were not possible to leave the present Otley Ward untouched, his Council would be prepared to accept plans for a ward linking the town of Otley with a neighbouring similar community (the Labour Party alternative 99 members plan suggested joining Otley with to form a ward (19,185 electors - entitlement 3-46) and joining Yeadon and Rawdon with , Pool and Arthington to form a ward (electorate 18,360 - entitlement 3*32)). I pointed out to Councillor Good that the loss of Harewood and East Keswick from the Otley and Wharfedale Ward as proposed

- 10 - by the Commission, would reduce the electorate of 1^,924- by 1,224, making an electorate of J4,700, which would give a low entitlement of 2.t>6" for e v;ard returning 5 Councillors. Councillor Audrey Slee, representing the Ripon Constituency Labour Party, said tiijere was no community of interest between the Otle,y area and Ka'st Kecwick and Harewood. She felt that two similar areas made a balanced community. If there was a community of interest then local government interest followed, one ^aid that Pool had a strong connection with Otley as had Arthington. Bramhope too had links with utley although admittedly also some links with Yeadon. She said that she supported Councillor Good in expressing a preference for the present Otley and Wharfedale Ward, but if this were not possible then she would support the idea of a ward of Otley and Guiseley and another ward of Bramhope and Yeadon. Mrs. K. L. I'hiilips, Clerk of .t^ast Keswick Parish Council, said that i?;ast Keswick hsd close connections, with Vj'etherby, both historically and socially, and there was no direct link between ,£ast Keswick and the Otley area. East Keswick was now linked with Wetherby in an existing; ward and they had a Wetherby Councillor. They wished to continue being linked. Fir. Peter Cheverton-Brown, Conservative Party Agent for Barkston Ash Conservative Association, said that he very much supported the proposition that .blast Keswick should be linked with ',;etherby and not with utley. There were only some 722 electors in this parish arid this figure would help to increase the Wetherby electorate to a more equitable figure. Councillor G. Francis, Leeds City Councillor and. also a member of the Otley Town Council, said that the views expressed by Councillor Good (the Town Mayor) represented a majority decision of the Council, but the Conservative members were not in favour of the idea that there might be a ward linking Otley and Guiseley. He thought that this proposed link was nonsense. The two communities were split by the utley Chevin Hill and there was little or no communication between the two townships. The Otley and Wharfedale Ward suggested in the Draft Proposals was the best solution, for Otley was the market town for a large area of Wharfedale. He could understand that i^ast Keswick might wish to corae out of this ward and join uetherby nnd perhaps there was a better link between harewood and the Moortown area of Leeds. Mr. K. Houghton, Conservative Agent for the Hipon Constituency Conservative Association, referred to the alternative proposal for the linking of Otley and Guiseley. He pointed out that the Otley and Wharfedale Ward proposed in the Draft Proposals, even with the loss of East Keswick, would have an electorate of approximately 15?100, whereas the ward proposed by the Labour Party of Otley and Guiseley would have an electorate of over 19,000, which was surely not a satisfactory figure. This proposal to join Otley and Guiseley would have the effect also of splitting Guiseley from Yeadon, two townships which were very closely linked. Mr. IIughc-G-Uowlands then said he had some personal knowledge of Guiseley and that Guiseley looked towards Yeadon, both townships being part of the ^rovious Aireborough Urban District. They had close political and social connections, ^s to joining Guiseley

- 11 - with Otley, there was a very difficult road connection between the two and, in fact, one had to go out of the City through in order to get from one township to the other - surely this was not very satisfactory. Mr. Norman Jones then raised the matter of the phraseology in Schedule 11 as to equality of electorate in the various wards, referring particularly to the phrase "as nearly as may be" and he said that some circumstances may arise when to effect equality of electorate would make a "nonsense11. It was right that we should look at alternatives and he felt that the alternative of Otley and Guiseley being merged together to form a ward was logical. Mrs. Pat Walker, of Otley Liberal Association, said she supported the proposal of joining Otley with Guiseley. She believed that the two townships were not cut off from each other. There was certainly a good case for Otley and Wharfedale to form a ward as at present, but if that were not possible then she w.ould support a ward of Otley and Guiseley. Mr. A. Holt, Clerk of the Bardsey-cum-Rigton Parish Council, then spoke to the representations submitted by his Council in which there were strong objections to Bardsey-cum-Rigton being included in a proposed North Ward and linked with the Moor Allerton area of Leeds. He said that the proposals, if implemented, would sever the traditional links which Bardsey had with adjoining rural parishes and which had existed since 189^; it was considered ludicrous that the adjacent parishes of Collingham, Bardsey, Bast Keswick and Thorner would in future be within four separate wards; there were enormous differences between the predominantly urban character of Moor Allerton and the rural green belt village of Bardsey which had a strong base in agriculture and a cohesive social strength evidenced by the numerous flourishing societies, clubs and other organisations within the Parish; the rectification of numerical imbalance did not justify the radical carving up of this pleasant well established rural grouping with all the disturbance and disadvantages which would result therefrom; the proposed attachment of rural parishes to more densely populated urban areas indicated clearly the improbability of future candidates being nominated to the City Council who were conversant with rural needs and problems. Mr. Hope went on to say that his Council had had consultation with other nearby parishes and now submitted to the Commission an alternative scheme for the setting up of a North Ward which would comprise the Parishes of Bardsey-cum-Rigton, Barwick and Scholes, Bramham, Clifford, East Keswick, the whole Parish of Harewood, Scarcroft, Thorner and Wothersome, also the village of Shadwell and a small area of .Leeds to the north of the Ring Road and to the .east of the Ilarrogate ftoad, A.61. He emphasised that this scheme did not propose division of established Parish Council areas, was consistent with existing Parish boundaries, maintained close affinity between related communities, retained public transport communications and had a minimal numerical effect on other proposed contiguous wards. The Bardsey-cum-Rigton Parish Council had submitted a plan showing the alternative North Ward now suggested, but 1 had to take issue with Mr. Holt on his statement that this alternative scheme would have only a minimal numerical effect on other proposed

- 12 - contiguous wards, for on my calculation it appeared to me. that, whilst the proposed alternative ward would have an electorate of some 15,500 electors, with an entitlement of 2.80, and could therefore be regarded as reasonably satisfactory, forming such a ward would have the effect of reducing the Otley and Wharfedale Ward to 14-,700 (entitlement 2.65), reducing the toetherby ward to 12,738 (entitlement 2.3), reducing the Roundhay Ward to 14,205 (entitlement 2.56), and leaving an area (the remaining part of the Boundary Commission's proposed North Ward) with an electorate of some 10,137- Therefore 1 had to say to Mr. Hope that, whilst his proposal was good for all the rural.parishes here, it would be virtually impossible to fit such a ward into .a satisfactory pattern for Leeds as a whole (for example, it would leave the w'etherby area isolated with the 12,738 electors with an entitlement of only 2.3)- Nevertheless, 1 appreciated the point he had made about the difficulty of linking country parish areas with the outer urban areas of what was previously the Leeds County Borough area. Hiss V. Watson, Clerk of the Scarcroft Parish Council, referred to the representations submitted by her Council and she said that she wished to endorse all that Mr. Hope had said. The main feeling in the Scarcroft Parish was that they would not be adequately represented if Scarcroft were part of the proposed North Ward. At this stage I had to notify the meeting that a letter had been received from the Parish Council referring to the alternative scheme put forward by Bardsey-cum-Rigton and supported by Scarcroft and stating that, whilst they had sympathy with those parishes, they would find it very difficult for Boston'. Spa to support any proposals which would separate their traditional link with Bramham and Clifford (Boston Spa was not included in the North Ward alternatively suggested by Bardsey-cum-Rigton). Councillor R. H. Ives, a member of the Leeds City Council and also a Parish Councillor of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council, referred to the representations submitted by his Parish Council objecting to the Draft Proposals, for such Proposals had included the Scholes village in the Whinmoor Ward (so linking the , village with an outer urban area of Leeds) whereas the other part of the Parish, namely Barwick in Elmet, was included in the proposed Barwick "rural" Ward. As to the Scholes area it was felt that, if they were included in the Whinmoor Ward, there was little chance of ocholes having a representative on the City Council. He said that the Tarish Council were anxious that Barwick and Scholes should not be split in this way and it was hoped that some amendment of this scheme could be made to keep the two villages comprising the one Parish together in some way. Mr. S. M. Samwell, representing the Barwick in Elmet and Scholes Parish Council, said that he was the local librarian and he wanted to emphasise that the electors of Scholes had no connection whatever with the Whinmoor area of Leeds. There was no doubt that Scholes wished to be in the same ward as Barwick and would be ahppier in a rural ward. "No-one would willingly vote if they were in the Whinmoor Ward" he said.

- 13 - South-eastern outer areas (including Garforth, Rothwell and Swillington) .' Mrs. G. Gamble, representing the Garforth Labour Party, put forward strong objections to the splitting of Garforth town by the proposal which placed some three-quarters of the town in the Austhorpe Ward (namely, Joining with an outer area of Leeds) and putting one-quarter of the town in the Barwick "country" ward. She emphasised that Garforth had no connection with the district of Austhorpe and that Garforth had traditional ties with Kippax. Mr. R. M. Bartless, representing the Garforth and Kippax Conservative Association, said that he supported Councillor Ives in his objection to the village of Scholes being left out of the Barwick ward (in favour of taking in the Parish of Thorner). He said that he would like to see the town of Garforth wholly contained in one ward. He noted that the Labour Party alternative plan, whilst including Garforth as a whole in one ward split the township of Kippax in two and this was not satisfactory. He then referred to the proposals for Austhorpe Ward, which included some three-quarters of the town of Garforth. He noted that the name given to this ward was Austhorpe and not Garforth. This was somewhat unsatisfactory. Mr. K. A. Marling, Chairman of Garforth Community Association, said that there was very good community spirit in Garforth.and it would be a mistake to divide the town. Garforth had no connection with Leeds. He added that Garforth and Austhorpe would probably be separated in the future by the proposed M62 - Al link road. (Mr. 1'hornton of the Leeds Planning Department later.handed to me a plan showing the wide general area referred to as "the Preferred Route" - this left the M62 road east of Lofthouse and west of. Methley, and ran to the east of Oulton, to the west of' Swillihgton, then between Austhorpe and Garforth, then around Scholes and Thorner and so north to the Wetherby area.). Councillor G. Moakes, Leeds City Councillor, said.that he represented the existing Ward 28 which comprised Kippax, Swillington, Great and Little Preston, Allerton Bywater, Ledston and Ledsham. He said that this area comprised a coal mining community in a rural setting and the people here were still reeling from the shock of the recent Local Government reorganisation. He felt that it was crazy to change the ward representation at the present time, for by the Draft Proposals the area which he represented would be split into two - the eastern part in tie proposed Barwick Ward,and the western part (comprising Swillington and Great and Little Preston) would be in the Whitkirk Ward (which linked Swillihgton and Great and Little Preston with the outer area of Leeds). He wanted to emphasise that there was absolutely no community of interest between Swillington and Whitkirk, there was no bus service between the two areas, and the people here would wish to be linked with their own mining people in the same area. Councillor D. B. Matthews, of the City of Leeds Labour Party, also referred to the coal mining community in this southeastern part of the City and the political affinity which they had together. He suggested that the Commission should take the existing ward 28 and also the existing Ward 31 (the Rothwell area) and divide that area into two as in the Labour Party's alternative scheme, linking Oulton and Woodlesford with Swillington. He said that perhaps some improvement could be effected on this general idea. Rev. F. E. Redhead, Vicar of Hothwell and Chairman of the Rothwell and District Civic Society, referred to the representations submitted by his Society, which said that the splitting up of the township of Rothwell as envisaged in the Draft Proposals would inevitably break up local ties and the existing community. He said that the split of Rothwell into three separate wards, the main part being the Rothwell Ward and other parts being in Ward and in Middleton Ward, was a "nonsense". The dividing lines were right through the centre of the town. Rothwell had become the natural sociological centre for all the villages around (Lofthouse, Thorpe, Oulton, Mickletown etc.) and he stressed that Rothwell had no connection with the Middleton area of Leeds, so that that part of the"- township which was linked with Middleton, would be without community of interest or link of any kind and, similarly, there was no community of interest with that part of Rothwell Haigh" which had been linked with the Hunslet district of Leeds. He wished to stress that in the West Yorkshire Structure Plan it was envisaged that Rothwell would have some increase of population and he felt that very soon the Rothwell area would have sufficient electorate for two wards. The people of Rothwell desired that the present Rothwell Ward should be retained. 1 had to observe to Rev. Redhead that, whilst I appreciated that the division of Rothwell was somewhat unfortunate, the existing Rothwell Ward had a 1981 projected electorate of over 21,000 electors and that, therefore, it was not possible to suggest that the existing ward should now form a new ward in the Proposals. Some ward division would have to be found somewhere. County Councillor W. H. Banks, representing the Rothwell district, said that he appreciated the requirement as to equality of representation, but it was unfortunate that one was looking for a magic number instead of looking for a community unit. He acknowledged tha't there was en extremely difficult problem here. Rothwell, however, was the largest central focal point which linked all the small villages around and which became identified as one complete unit. He said there would be public outcry if the Proposals which divided Rothwell rather unsatisfactorily into three three wards was finally decided. As to the breaking of local ties, more damage could not be done than would follow the approval of the boundary lines drawn in the Draft Proposals. The wishes of the people had been expressed in public meetings and Rothwell people did not wish to be in Middleton Ward or in Hunslet Ward. Again he stressed that there were possible development areas in Rothwell although these may not necessarily show up in the 1981 forecast figures. Mr. Basil Lott, of ^-othwell, who had submitted a number of representations at various stages, said that his main interest was the value of his vote (one man one vote) and he agreed that the Commission were not likely to tolerate a ward of some 21,000 electors. He hoped, however, a suitable Rothwell Ward could be found within the "guidelines". He noted that the Labour Party's alternative plan hived off Oulton and Woodlesford and linked them with Swillington and he felt that this Labour Party alternative was more viable than the Commission's Proposals. Mr. Lott also spoke for Mr, Hanforth who wished to submit a petition that Thorpe on the Hill should be taken out of Middleton Ward and to say that this village had more association with Ardsley to the south (Ardsley being in the Morley South Ward). Mr. F. Thurwell, who lived in Woodlesford and represented the Lofthouse Aged Persons Welfare Committee and the Rothwell Labour Party, said that Rothwell urban area had no community of interest with the City areas of Hunslet and Middleton (they even had a different education system). He referred to the Labour Pairty's alternative plan which allowed Rothwell to remain as one ward but linked Oulton and Woodlesford with Swillington. Councillor Mrs. Rose Lund, then submitted a petition signed by some 2,356 persons stating that it was considered that the Commission's Draft Proposals displayed a total disregard for the interests of the people concerned in the revision of the Hothwell electoral ward boundaries. ilhe petitioners therefore objected to the implementation of the Proposals in their present form. Sfce emphasised that the views of people mattered very much and the people wished for the ^othwell ward to stay as it was. (I again pointed out that the 1981 electorate would not make this possible.) Mrs. Lund then said that the next best solution would be the Labour Party's alternative plan. Mr. C. T. McCourt, representing the North West Branch Rothwell Labour Party, referred to the petition and the Labour Party's alternative plan under which it was expected that Oulton and Woodlesford would be lost out of the Rothwell area and linked with Swillington. He referred to the unusual problems which the Rothwell area presented, particularly referring to the township of Mickletown which was somewhat isolated at the east end of the ward. Finally he referred to the draft county Structure Plan. This had only just been put out for discussion and there was no chance of its being implemented by 1981. i Mr. Norman Jones, for the Leeds Labour Party, then referred to the two'alternative plans of wards for this south eastern area of Leeds, submitting again that the wards should reflect the political views of the area. He submitted that the Labour Party's alternative plan of two main wards linked together the mining community, whereas the Conservative Plan (the Uraft Proposals) placed part of Rothwell in Hunslet Ward and part in Middleton Ward, the Swillington area was linked with the Wh'itkirk area of Leeds, and part of the Garforth area was linked with Austhorpe snd Manston. With these proposals there was a tendency that the miners*vote would be-swamped. In his view and the Labour Party's view,these proposals would not make sense. There was of course, a nettle to be grasped in respect of the Kippax area. If we were forced to play the "numbers game" then something had to go and in the Labour Party's alternative plan one had been forced to divide Kippax into two. whilst this was unfortunate, he felt that the Labour Party's alternative plan was much preferable to the Conservative plan. At this point the Meeting was adjourned to the following day.

- 16 - (5) Ghurwell Village (Norley) On resumption Mrs. K. Hall, of Ghurwell, who said her submission was non-political, referred to the petition of some 1,359 electors, which was sent to the Commission, against the proposal to take the village of Churwell out of Norley North Ward arid put it in the proposed Beeston Ward. She said that this was a senseless action and had caused much controversy and concern in both Churwell and Beeston. There was no doubt a real desire by Churwell people to stay with Norley, everyone was up in arras. At the meeting the previous day it had been said that a decision would not mean that the village would lose its identity but she felt that this was wrong. Churwell was part of Morley and should be placed in a Norley Ward. 1 said that it appeared that Churwell had been left out of the Norley area because of the desire to have wards of equal number of electors. Whether or not Churwell could be added back into Norley would depend on a reappraisal of the number of electors in the relevant wards. 1 said that I had certainly noted the strong objection which had been received on this matter. Councillor D. B. Matthews, of the Leeds Labour Party, referred to the situation as to wards in south Leeds and he said he thought the Labour Party's alternative plan for the Norley area, which would include Churwell in a Morley Ward, was much fairer. He suggested that the Mill Shaw Beck was a natural dividing line between Norley and the Leeds area. This had originally been the Borough boundary. (6) Bramley, Armley, Holbeck and sd.-jacent areas. We then came to consideration of the ward arrangements in the Bramley, Armley and Holbeck areas for there had been many strong objections submitted in respect of the Commission's Proposals for a Bramley and Armley Ward and a Holbeck Ward which included part of Armley. It was claimed that the dividing line between these two wards split the town of Armley into two. A number of objectors had been present at the meeting on the first day but were unable to be present on the morning of the second day and Miss Pat Coombes had been asked to make the formal submission on behalf of Mr. E. Walley of the Armley Society, and also the Armley Lodge Community Centre and the Armley Defence Committee and also to submit a petition signed by some 4,500 people objecting to the proposals affecting the Armley area. The Armley Society submission first gave some background information as to the Arraley Society which was, in a sense, the Civic Societyfor Armley and having played a major part in the campaign "to save Armley". '1'he Society's objections to the Commission's Proposals were:- (i) that they would work against any attempts to strengthen, develop and reinforce the existing community in the area; (ii) they were a geographical "nonsense"; (iii) a substantial body of local opinion resented the proposed changes; and (iy) the split of Armley would weaken the political representation in the area. It was claimed that Armley was quite clearly marked with natural geographical boundaries and that the area was thriving with community activities of all kinds. On

- 17 - the other hand, the boundaries as proposed for the wards did not follow any logical geographical pattern. The Armley people were strongly committed to /.rmley having its own representation on the Leeds City Council, since they felt that this would obviously support the type of community activity that the Society wished to see continued in the Armley area. Miss Coombes said that the Armley Lodge Community Centre objected to the Draft Proposals on the grounds that they (i) bore no relationship to the identity of the area; (ii) would split an established community; (iii) did not follow any reasoned geographical area; (iv) would cause instability of local representation; and (v) were not within the wishes of the people. Furthermore, the Community Centre Committee felt that the ward proposals would undo all the work of the past years that .the Community Centre had done in trying to weld the community together. The submission of the Armley Defence Committee referred to the petition signed by over 4?OQO electors strongly opposing the boundary changes and reiterating what had been said in the earlier submissions. The Defence Committee pointed out that the origins of the township of Armley dated back over 1,000 years to the time of the Danish occupation of England, and the site of the original settlement, "The Lea of Orme", was situated within the area'which was now proposed to be part of the new Holbeck Ward, as was much of the traditional and commercial section of the Armley community, for example the Parish Church, Library, Armley lviills Museum and a great deal of the shopping centre. The name of Armley did not even appear in the title of that Ward. The name Armley only appeared secondarily in the other ward, the Bramley and Armley Ward. The Defence Committee felt strongly about the issue of local representation for the people of Armley- who at present were represented by a County Councillor and three District Councillors, all of whom lived in Armley and were well known by the Electorate. They held local surgeries each week at Armley Library which was in easy access of all parts of the township. If the ward were to be split up, then this convenient and satisfactory arrangement would not be likely to continue. The Armley Defence Committee put forward a plan of an alternative ward which might be settled 'for Armley and which they claimed contained approximately 16,500 electors. The south eastern boundary of this proposed ward was the railway and motorway barrier near Wellington Road and the western boundary was to the west of Gotts Park along Cockshott Lane and through the Greenthorpe Estate. At the end of this fairly lengthy submission of the case for a separate Armley Ward, 1 had to point out that the ward now proposed by the Armley Defence Committee was somewhat similar to the Armley Ward suggested by the Labour Party (but smaller). The Labour Party's proposals for an Armley Ward was that this ward was estimated to have 15,682 electors in 1981 (2.83 entitlement) (although the Conservative Party had suggested that this electorate figure was somewhat high and should be about 15,072 (entitlement 2.73))- (After the meeting the Council's Officers gave me their forecast of the 1981 electorate for this Armley Ward area and

- 18 - they said that it was not likely to be any higher than 14,669). I had to point out to the meeting that the difficulty about the Labour Party's proposals in this part of Leeds was that all the wards (Armley Ward, Bramley Ward, Stanningley Ward, Wortley Ward and Pudsey North and Pudsey South Wards) were comparatively small, even if using the Labour Party's figures (and the Conservative Party's figures for these wards were even smaller). 1 pointed out the figures for the wards as follows:-

Labour Party Suggested Labour Party Conservative Party Ward figures . figures

Electorate Entitlement Electorate Entitlement Armley 15,682 2,83 15,072 2.73 Bramley 15,728 2.84 14,102 2.56 Stanningley 15,609 2.82 .15,120 2,74 Wortley • 15,^76. 2.79 14,777 2.68 Pudsey Worth 15,220 2.75 14,872 2.70 Pudsey South 15,106 2.73 14,604 2.65

92,821 16.79 88,547 16.02

These figures clearly showed that the area covered by these six wards did not have a total entitlement for 18 Councillors and that was no doubt .why the Boundary Commission had used part of Armley to add to Holbeck to make a Holbeck Ward so as to give a better equality of electorate.compared with other wards in the City. Mr. W. H. Goodwill, representing the Leeds South Labour Party, referred to the natural boundary which there was between the Holbeck area and the Armley area. This natural boundary was on the line of the motorway road, the railway line and the industrial area, and he claimed that this was an effective barrier between the two areas, there was no compatibility between the two. Mr. J. S. Dixon, representing the Armley Ward Labour Party, said that there were three definite established communities, namely, Holbeck, Armley and Bramley and the proposals for the joint Bramley and Armley Ward was nonsensical. He claimed there were natural boundaries between the various communities and he said.there was quite a lot of feeling on this particular problem, both from the Liberal Party, the.Conservative Party and the Labour Party. County Councillor C. Greenfield, representing the West Yorkshire County Council Liberal Group, referred to the area separating Armley and Holbeck and said that this area, highly industrial, was really an extension of the town centre. He felt that this line of

- 19 - the motorway and the railway was a natural boundary and he went on to discuss with me the possible tolerances of 1981 projected electorates which might be allowed for each ward. Mr. Norman Jones joined in this discussion and, on being pressed, 1 said that if the proposal for any ward was not impossible or absolutely nonsensical, then 1 was looking for an electorate which would show an entitlement no.higher than 3-2 and no lower than 2.8. County Councillor D. L. Matthews, Leeds Labour Party, said that the dividing line between Holbeck and Armley was in some respects a no-man's land, but in the Labour Party's alternative scheme the industrial area fell inside the suggested Holbeck/ Beeston Ward. He went on to say that Holbeck's electorate had fallen from 14,000 electors to 5,000 electors in the last 10 years and those people moving out of the area tended to move into Beeston. He claimed that if the Holbeck/Beeston boundary was settled along the motorway and railway line and the line of the industrial site, then the other wards to the west settled themselves (although, as I had pointed out previously, they would be rather smaller wards than we were looking for). Mr. Norman Jones, representing the Leeds Labour Party, then made some submissions as to political effect of some of the ward alterations. He pointed out, for instance, that in the Commission's Proposals, the Moor area ,had been split, half remained in Stanningley Ward and the western half had been included in Pudsey South Ward. He also referred to the political effect of having an Armley Ward or having a ward combining the eastern part of Armley with Holbeck. Mr. R. Hughes-Rowlands, representing the Leeds Conservative Party,. commenced on the proposals put forward by his Party, which had now become the Commission's Draft Proposals, in relation to West Leeds. He believed that the proposed Wortley Ward, Beeston Ward and Holbeck Ward made very compact wards, although perhaps the electorates were on the low side. As to Pudsey North, it had been thought right to include the whole of Rodley in the ward, taking the eastern part of Rodley out of the Stanningley area. He felt there was no really identifiable boundary between the various parts of the Rodley area. In Pudsey South, although Swinnow Moor had been divided, the boundary was well known, being a ward and county electoral division boundary. In Morley North Ward it had not been thought possible by reason of numbers to include Churwell in the Morley North Ward and this had been added into the Beeston Ward. Morley South Ward also made a satisfactory ward. As to the Armley area, he•said in 1961 there was an Upper Armley Ward and there was no talk then of there being any splitting of communities. The formation of the Bramley and Armley Ward was simply going back to a ward which had been in operation previously. The boundaries in Bramley, Stanningley and Armley were polling district boundaries. This was an area which was heavily built up and it was not very easy to find obvious boundaries. Councillor Miss Denise Atkinson, a member of the -Leeds City Council and representing Bramley, was very concerned that the ancient township of Bramley should be preserved. She favoured the Labour Party's alternative ward plan which suggested a separate

- 20 - Ward and a separate Brand ey v:ard. one wished to ensure that there was no division of the Bramley area which she suspected would be the cnse if the Boundary Commission's Proposals were approved, (7) Horsforth and Aireborough areas •We then came to consideration of the Commission's Proposals affecting the area of Horsforth and Aireborough, it being proposed that there should be (i) an .Aireborough Ward with some 17»478 electors (entitlement 5-16) and comprising the village of Hawksworth, the township of Guiseley and the main part of the township of Yeadon; and (ii) a Horsforth Ward which comprised the remainder of ieadon, the township of Rawdon and the major part of Horsforth (17,569 electors in 1981)(entitlement 3.14). This Horsforth Ward, however, did not include some 3?268 electors in Horsforth 'Woodside in the south east corner of Horsforth (this area having been added into the adjacent Kirkstall Ward)* It was concerning these ward proposals of Aireborough and Horsforth that the Boundary Commission had received.the most objections and representations - some 7? letters from various local organisations, political parties and private persons. Mr. J. S. Brodwell, Chairman of the Horsforth Civic Society and speaking on behalf of the Civic Society and the Horsforth Community Association, the Horsforth Chamber of Trade and many local residents, opened the discussion on this matter. He said that the persons he represented were very strongly in opposition to the Draft Proposals for the area of Horsforth was split into two, a larger part was added to Rawdon and Yeadon on the west and the remaining smaller part, largely consisting.of Horsforth Woodside, had been added into Kirkstall Ward on the east. He said that he knew that alternative plans had been submitted to the Commission which would"make it possible for there to be a Horsforth Ward which would be comprised entirely of the whole of Horsforth. One plan suggested that a ward be formed of Guiseley and Otley, another ward linking the communities of Yeadon, Hawdon and Carlton and then another ward formed of Pool, Arthington, Bramhope and . The Labour Party plan suggested a ward of Otley and Guiseley and a ward of Yeadon, Rawdon, Bramhope and other parishes in Wharfedale.. He hoped that it would be possible for one or other of the alternative plans to be accepted, so that Horsforth Ward could be formed as he had suggested. He went on to refer to the three important, factors referred to in Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act, (1) equality; (2) the ward should have easily identifiable boundaries; and (3) regard should be had to local ties which would be broken by a particular boundary. He said that a Horsforth Ward, comprising the whole of Horsforth would fulfil all these criteria. The boundaries were easily identifiable, they had been known ever since 1575» for Horsforth had been an independent self-governing community for some 400 years. The features were sensible and easily identifiable, mainly streams on all sides, t;nd there was an area of green "belt on all sides. On the other hand, he said the proposed boundary between the Boundary Commission's proposed Horsforth Ward and the area of Horsforth Woodside to be included in Kirkstall Ward, was a very uncertain line. There was no logical or identifiable way to determine where this boundary lay. As to local ties, it was his submission'that it was essential to preserve the ward as one entity,

- 21 - for Horsforth had now lost its own local Council, it had no Parish Council, it was now part of the very large Leeds Metropolitan District and it had lost its focus for community life. Eorsforth was a living community with a large number of local institutions - a 1976 directory showed at least 100 local organisations based on Horsforth. The failure to have regard to local ties had a number of immediate effects. Horsforth itself was represented by three Councillors who all lived within the ward and were well-known to electors. If the proposed new ward boundaries came into being it may be that the larger part of Horsforth would be represented by Councillors from Kawdon or Yeadon and they would not necessarily have Horsforth's interests at heart. Most certainly the 3,500 odd electors who lived in Horsforth Woodside would be represented by Councillors from Kirkstall and that would be a serious loss of contact between electors and their Councillors. There was no real contact between Horsforth Woodside and Kirkstall. There were other inevitable consequences. For example, the Civic Society had an interest in the issue of lists of planning applications issued by the Council's Planning Department. These were issued by reference to wards and therefore at the present time they received lists in relation to the whole of Horsforth. There would certainly be difficulty in future if Horsforth were divided. Furthermore, .the political parties based their local organisations upon ward boundaries and if ward boundaries were changed drastically as proposed then these organisations would also be very much weakened in the eyes of Horsforth people. There would be a significant loss of community spirit within the area'and perhaps a loss of interest in local elections themselves. Each ward in Leeds was going to be a very large area and therefore it was increasingly ' important that there should be contact between Councillors and their electors. . . He acknowledged that the obtaining of some numerical equality in the various wards of the City was not easy to achieve but, nevertheless, he felt that human relationships and a living community should mean more than an arbitrary line drawn on a .map. He implored me to accept one of the alternative proposals to ensure that the whole of Horsforth was made into the Horsforth ;Jard. It had sufficient electors to fulfil the criteria of numerical content. Finally, Mr. Brodwell reminded me that, when the Proposals were published, a petition was handed to the Commission of some 5,000 signatures, all protesting against the Proposals. Mrs. K. Hutchinson J.P., of Yeadon, representing the Aireborough Labour Party and the Save Yeadon Campaign, referred to the petitions which had been submitted, including a petition containing 1,23.1 signatures from that part of Yeadon which under the Boundary Commission's Proposals would become part of Horsforth Ward. The signatures were obtained from an electorate of about 1,900 in the middle of the holiday season and therefore almost unanimous. A second petition had been launched in the rest of Yeadon to give the electorate a chance to express their opinion and that petition contained some 1,301 signatures, again collected during the peak holiday period and most people showed their strong objections and disgust at the proposals which split Yeadon. People were quite emotional about this. Admittedly they were somewhat parochial in their outlook, but it must not be forgotten that the Aireborough area used to have 9 Councillors and now that the area had been amalgamated into Leeds it was represented by only 3 Councillors. As to the alternatives, the Yeadon people did not mind into which ward they were placed so long as the whole township went together. Mrs. Hutchinson then referred to possible alternatives (i) Yeadon and Guiseley being together, admittedly with a high electorate of over 17,500; and (ii) the possibility of Yeadon and Rawdon being amalgamated with Bramhope. She said that they would not really welcome being joined with Bramhope, they were like oil and water, they did not mix. As to joining with Horsforth, most of the Yeadon people would not know where.-the centre of Horsforth was,'they had nothing in common with Horsforth. She then referred to that part of Yeadon which had been severed from the rest and added into Horsforth Ward. This was a rather important part of Yeadon with its football ground, its cricket ground, ibs Parish Church and part of the High Street. The division boundary went down the High Street. She said the people of Yeadon felt that a Berlin Wall was being erected right down the centre, of the town. Mr. G. Woledge, Chairman of Aireborough Civic Society, said that his Society had considered this matter purely on civic lines. He realised that the electorate of what had been the.area of the Aireborough Urban District was some 21,000 and that therefore, in - order to achieve a ward of some 16,500 electors., 4 some area must be lost.' It'was a Parliamentary provision that wards should as nearly as possible be of equal electorate. The alternatives were then of course that some part of the area should be joined to Otley or to Horsforth and it may be that Horsforth .was the obvious direction. He wanted to say, however, that Yeadpn and Guiseley were industrial textile areas, it was a united area and they regarded themselves as one unit. There were numerous organisations in the area and they all wished to retain Aireborough and they felt that, if it had to be divided, the boundary division proposed, was rather ludicrous. He had never known such anger"on'a civic or political matter. . Nr. Alistair Laurence, who said'he was representing his personal views and also the people of Horsforth, presented a prepared paper with accompanying maps showing, first, the streams and watercourses which formed the boundaries of Horsforth, boundaries which he claimed had been there for many centuries and had become 'old boundary lines long established and time honoured. Secondly he showed how the land contours relating to the streams and watercourses provided valleys which emphasised the boundaries of the area. Thirdly he showed a map of green-belt land and .open space around Horsforth which clearly defined the boundaries preserving the township's distinctive and unique character. He . went on to say that the purpose of showing the maps was to explain that from a historical and topographical point of view, Horsfprth deserved to be treated as a special case when it came to drawing up new ward boundaries. He claimed that whoever had had the responsibility of mapping out the ward boundary lines, as set out in the Drai't Proposals, had shown ignorance of the special character and special nature of Horsforth. He said that 1,000 years of historic continuity was still a valid consideration when realigning the boundaries. The continuance of a long established community was just what our increasingly ruthless society needed. Finally he said that social links arid ties had also to be considered and he felt that Horsforth had a strong case that there should be a ward of Horsforth on its own. Mr. R. H. Howe, of Horsforth, representing the Pudsey Constituency Liberal Association, said that Horsforth on its own would make a very balanced ward. It had been a most arbitrary decision to move Horsforth Woodside into Kirkstall Ward. It was an act of vandalism and destruction of something valuable. He claimed that in Horsforth there had been a gradual breakdown of the antipathy to local affairs and now there were excellent turn-outs at elections. He deprecated the emphasis on numbers for each ward. There seemed to be no regard for the people who • made up the electorate. There were going to be very large wards in Leeds and there ought to be some numerical flexibility, only if one made a community group into a ward would any success be achieved. Horsforth people wished to retain their present boundaries and he suggested that consideration might be given to the suggestion that Yeadon, Rawdon and Bramhope might make up a ward. Councillor M. D. Crossfield, a member of the Leeds City Council representing Horsforth and Leeds South Labour Party, said he was 100# parochial in his attitude as to Horsforth. He lived in Horsforth Woodside and was well known in the village, his concern being for his fellow electors who lived around him. He referred to a petition which had beenprepared protesting against the proposals as to Horsforth,which petition had been delivered personally to the Boundary Commission. He said he had also written to H.M. the Queen, for the Proposals were quite a disaster for Horsforth Woodside. Horsforth had a heritage to which the village area contributed and it would be morally wrong for the community to be severed and for Horsforth to be fed to political lions. At this point Councillor Mrs. E. A. Nash, a member of the Leeds City Council and representing the Kirkstall Labour Party, said she had to state that Kirkstall really did not want any part of Horsforth in the ward, ohe referred to the ancient area of Kirkstall and . Mr. Edwin Barlow, representing Horsforth Labour. Party, put forward a plea for the preservation of the community of Horsforth. There was a lack of identity in people's lives and anything which unified them or kept them together had consequences of increased identity and political involvement. He claimed that the Commission's Proposals would divide the people of Horsforth and sever some of the political organisations. There.would be alienation and people would feel remote from their Councillors. Mr. Hughes-Rowlands, for the Conservative Party, referred to the difficulties of electoral numbers in the Horsforth area and in Aireborough. The Aireborough area had some 2,000 to 3»000 electors too many and the.Horsforth problem was very much caused by the electorate numbersposition in Aireborough. In dealing with the plan for Leeds^one ha"d to look at the area as a- whole. Horsforth had not really enough electors to be a ward on its own. The Labour Party had submitted that the electorate was 15^071 (entitlement 2.72) but the Conservative Party felt that the electorate number was a little less. (A later figure from the Planning Department ^;ave the Horsforth area 14,856 electors.) He knew well the feeling in Horsforth and also in Guiseley and in Yeadon, but he had to say that he felt the Otley/Wharfedale area would be better served by a ward down the valley. He felt that there Otley Chevin was a barrier between Otley and Guiseley. As to the Aireborough Ward, the original idea was to make the boundary the Harrogate Road at Yeadon, but this showed that the ward was too big. With the ward boundary drawn as at present by the Commission there would be the advantage that the Yeadon airport and its surrounding land would all be in one ward. At one time they had thought about joining Rawdon with Calverly to the south, but they felt that the River Aire was a boundary which prevented a reasonable link here. Furthermore, he felt that Bramhope did not really join with Yeadon and Rawdon but joined more easily with Otley or with Leeds. As to taking out Horsforth Woodside and placing it in the Kirkstall Ward, there was difficulty there as to the boundary, but they took out what was the Horsforth East polling district. There would be no change in the polling station to which the electorate of this area would go to vote and he emphasised that these ward boundary proposals would not affect the community life of Horsforth, nor would they affect the area office arrangements. Mr. Brodwell came back to make the point that, if Horsforth Woodside were moved into Kirkstall Ward, that small area would be moved out of one Parliamentary Constituency into another. I then discussed with him the plan which had been submitted showing an alternative ward arrangement of Otley and Guiseley; an Aireborough Ward comprising Yeadon, Rawdon and Carlton; a Wharfedale and Cookridge Ward comprising Bramhope,. Arthington, Pool and the Cookridge area of Leeds; a differently shaped Kirkstall Ward; and a Horsforth Ward comprising the whole of Horsforth, and I stated that my study of the electorate figures showed that this would give a very uneven and unequal electorate pattern. I then quoted to him what I believed to be the 1976 electorate figures for the five wards which he had suggestedfbut, for the purpose of this report, I have added into the undermentioned table the 1981 projected electorate figures for these areas later supplied to me by the Planning Department).

1981 Suggested 1976 Projected Electorate Wards Electorate Entitlement

Otley and Guiseley 19,375 18,996 (3.44) Aireborough 14,100 14,355 (2.60) (Yeadon, Rawdon and Carlton) Horsforth 15,071 14,856 (2.69) Wharf edale .and Cookridge 17,100 18,106 (3-27) (incl. Bramhope , Pool and Arthington) Kirkstall 17,700 16,647 (3.01) (incl. Ireland Wood and ) j?rom the above figures, it is also shown that Horsforth itself is small to be a ward on its own. Councillor D. B. Matthews, a County Councillor and representative of the Leeds Labou^farty, then said that dealing with the whole of the north west area of Leeds presented a difficult problem but he thought that the Labour Party's alternative plan was to be preferred. In that plan the Kirkstall Ward had been restored almost to its present boundaries (the Conservative Party had added areas to it); Horsforth was left as it was; a ward had been suggested of Yeadon, Hawdon, Bramhope and the neighbouring villages; and a ward had been suggested of Otley and Guiseley which would have the advantage that each of those townships would be wholly within one ward. Here again I had to observe that the Labour Party's plan suggested a Yeadon and Bramhope Ward and the 1976 electorate for such a ward was about 18,200, and the 1981 projected electorate was 18,462 . (showing an entitlement of 5 Councillor Mrs. Nash, Kirkstall Labour Party, again referred to the Kirkstall Ward and very much objected to the West Park area being included in this ward, bhe said there were two distinct communities here. She then referred to the Burley area to the south east of Kirkstall (included in University Ward in the Commission's Draft Proposals but included in Kirkstall Ward in the Labour Party's alternative scheme). She said that this ares should be in Kirkstall. It had previously been in the Kirkstall Ward and residents (and even Council Officials) still seemed to think that this area was part of Kirkstall 'Ward. She said that she was particularly concerned about the Commission's Proposals for the Kirkstall area because she felt that they had been formulated to the distinct advantage of the Conservative Party. Surely, she said, we ought to be looking to the advantage of Leeds City as a whole, not to political gain. (8) Miscellaneous matters Mr. B. Morris, an Independent Candidate in Morley, added his objection to the Churwell district being taken out of the Morley North Ward and placed in a proposed Beeston Ward. He said that it was on sociological grounds, not political grounds, that he suggested that Churwell should be added back into Horley, but he was also bound to say that if Churwell were not part of Horley Ward, there would be a decline in political interest. Moving Churwell out of Morley would be like breaking up a family. Rev. A, C. Betts, Vicar of All Saints Church, referred to the Commission's Proppsal that the Saxton Gardens area (polling district EV - No. 171) should be included in City Ward and taken out of Richmond Hill niard. He made a strong plea that this area should be returned into Richmond Hill Ward for it was part of that area rather than the City area. This was a proposal which had been put forward by the Liberal Party and seemed to have almost unanimous support. I informed the meeting that the 1981 projected electorate for City Ward

- 26 - appeared to be 17,237 (entitlement 3«12) and for Richmond Hill ward 15,914 (entitlement 2.88) and unless there were other considerations which had to be taken into account it seemed possible to make this transfer of some 1,065 electors. Mr. R. Spray, of the Armley Defence Committee, coming late into the meeting, asked permission to speak on the matter of the suggestion that there should be a separate ward for the Armley area, tie referred to the previous submissions on behalf of the Armley "Defence Committee and submitted to me a plan showing the motorway line and the railway line and the industrial area which he claimed served as a barrier between the Armley area and the Holbeck area. Although he admitted that the ward pattern was a very difficult jig-saw puzzle to solve, he claimed that there be a separate ward for Armley. (9) Final submissions We were now approaching the end of the meeting and I suggested that, in conclusion, there ought to be final submissions by the leading representatives of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative . Parties. Councillor M. J. Meadowcrof t , Leader of the Liberal Party, said that he appreciated that the number of electors for each ward was a crucial factor in the formulation of the plan. Nevertheless he wished to submit that the Labour Party's alternative plan appeared to the Liberal Party to be the better of the two plans, notwithstanding that the Commission seemed to have accepted the Council plan (the Conservative plan) in putting forward their Draft Proposals. He referred to the difficulties in Arinley, which had been split in the middle by the Commission's Proposals. He also referred to the Roundhay area and the Chapel Allerton area, but concluded that he appreciated that making alterations to any particular wards in the City had a ripple effect on the forming of wards throughout the whole area. Ivtr. Norman Jones, Counsel, for the Leeds Labour Party, .said that it should not be forgotten that the Draft Proposals now before the meeting were in effect the Council's draft scheme, which was a Conservative Party Plan and therefore not likely, to be to the advantage of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. There was no doubt that areas could be manoeuvered for political advantage, Jj'or example, Churwell had been taken out of Morley and added into Beeston Ward, which turned this seat into a marginal seat. Kirkstall riard had been formed to include "West Park (although there was no connection between the two areas) and this turned this ward into a likely strong Conservative -/ard. Hurley had been tden out of the Kirkstall Ward, which certainly was not to the advantage of the Labour Party. In Stanningley Ward the Swinnow area had been omitted and that certainly improved the situation so far as the Conservative Party were concerned. In the Kothwell, Swillington and Garforth area, the old Garforth No. 2 Ward (the Kippax area) now disappeared and Swillington was now included in the Whitkirk Ward, although there was a wide countryside barrier between the two areas and the Labour vote would be drowned in this ward.

- 27 - He appreciated.that there were difficult problems in formulating a satisfactory ward pattern and there were different methods of approach. If one strictly played the "numbers game" in accordance with the Statute, there was great danger that existing communities would be split up. He wanted to emphasise that there was great anxiety in the various communities in the City and it should be noted that many of the representations made in this matter were from .non-political groups formed for the purpose. Mr. Jones/said, that the submissions made in respect of the Rothwell, Swillington, etc., area were well founded; the case made in respect of the Horsforth area showed that there were firm geographical boundaries to support this area being made a ward on its own; the representations about Churwell (to be added back into Morley) were well founded. Leeds was not just an amorphous entity - a mere collection of units - it was a federation of areas, but surely not designed to destroy the small identities which made up the City. He claimed that the Labour plan was designed to accommodate the various communities of the City. Sometimes this was difficult because of the requirement as to equality of electors, but where a split had been forced upon them, then a wider community had been kept together, as was instanced in the Rothwell and Swillington area where the wider mining community 'had been kept together. Mr. Jones then referred to the claim made by the Conservative Party that the electorate estimates put forward by the Labour Party with their scheme were inaccurate. '1'his had not been argued at any length at the.meeting. Mr. Jones maintained that the Labour Party's figures were accurate but he said that he was prepared to stand by any figures which were produced by an independent officer of the City Council staff. Finally, he said that by adopting the Labour plan all the community interests represented at the meeting would be satisfied. Mr. R. Hughes-Rowlands, for the Conservative Party, said that he had commented from time to time during the meeting as. each area was discussed and he hoped that this had helped in showing the Conservative and Council thinking in the formulation of the wards which were included in the Dfirft Scheme. He said that some of the decisions had been taken quite reluctantly and only because of the statutory requirements as to equality of electorates in each of the various wards. He then referred to the Conservatives' comments on what they believed were inaccurate figures submitted by the Labour Party as to ward electorates for their ward scheme, but he said these would no doubt be checked with the Council Officer's figures. He.wanted to make the point.that the Conservatives had not alleged political bias, although the Labour Party had made some play on this . particular point. Leeds was such a City as to make it impossible for one party to organise a majority of seats in the Council. He claimed that it was a most difficult thing to forecast a voting pattern and he considered that the draft scheme and the Draft Proposals gave a scheme of wards with good political balance. It had been based on existing polling districts so there was not likely to be much disturbance of polling stations (this was not similarly true in respect of the Labour Party's alternative plan).

- 28 - As to alleged damage to communities, he did riot go all the way with the thoughts expressed as to damage caused by the movement of one particular area into another ward. There were so many wards about which there was no serious argument other than on minor points. In respect of some of the submissions the Conservative .Party fully agreed, for example, they would be happy £0 see East Keswick go into Wetherby Ward; as to the Rothwell and Swillington and Garforth areas, there was some argument as to electorate figures. The Conservatives believed that the Labour Party figures were too high and he agreed that it was most difficult to provide a satisfactory division of this area. As to the Pudsey .and Horley areas, the ward proposals here were dictated somewhat by the electorate figures and he could not wholly agree with some of the observations made by Mr. Jones as to the political effect on some of the marginal seats. There had been some argument as to the Bramley Town Centre, which he claimed was firmly in the middle of the Bramley and Armley Ward. Here there had been some attempt to whip up local feeling on what he considered inaccurate information. Finally, he said that the Conservative Plan (the Council's plan and Commission's Draft Proposals) had been placed on deposit and therefore fully publicised, as a result of which admittedly there had been many comments,representations and objections, but there had been no such publicity of the Labour Party alternative plan and he claimed that, if that plan had been given the same publicity, it might very well have brought about even more objection and comment. For example, if the proposal for joining Guiseley and Otley together to form a ward had been publicised there was likely to have been public outcry. In conclusion, he extended thanks on behalf of all the persons present on the way the meeting had been conducted. He thanked me for my patience and the opportunity I had given for everyone to have their say. 5. ELECTORATE FIGURES (1) Commission's Draft Proposals A disturbing feature about this meeting and the whole problem of the formulation of wards for the City of Leeds was the many differing electorate figures put forward at various times - namely - (a) 1976 and 1981 (projected) figures submitted with the Council's draft scheme and used to support the Commission's Draft Proposals; (b) revised 1981 (projected) figures submitted by the Planning Officer at the commencement of the meeting, occasioned by changes in housing policy and housing likely completions; and (c) further revised figures (both 1976 and 1981 (projected)) now arrived at following my request to be supplied with 1981 (projected) figures for all the existing polling districts. These figures showed significant changes, as will be seen in the following table, and the latest submitted 1981 (projected) figures alone necessitate a re-appraisal of a number of wards in the Commission's Draft Proposals - for example - Barwick Ward - 19,036 electors (entitlement 3.44); Bramley and Armley Ward - 19,795 (entitlement 3-58); City Ward - 20,532 (entitlement 3-71); Middleton Ward - 20,677 (entitlement 3-74); and Wetherby Ward - 14,64-0 (entitlement 2.65)•

- 29 - COMMISSION'S DRAFT PROPOSALS

Originally Submitted Submitted by Planning Submitted at Officer after Meeting Meeting

Projected Projected Proposed Projected Electorate Electorate Entitlement Electorate Electorate Electorate Entitlement Wards 1976 1981 1981 1976 1981

Aireborough 17,064 17,478 3.16 17,357 17,064 17,371 3.14 . Austhorpe 16,481 17,367 3.14 17,394 14,417 15,748 2.85 Barwick 15,882 17,183 3.11 17,767 17,956 19,036 3.44 Beeston 14,934 15,724 2.85 15,616 14,934 16,200 2.93 Bramley and Armley 18,263 17,268 3.12 16,856 20,574 19,795 3.58 17,140 16,225 2.94 16,113 16,497 15,508 2.80 Chapel Allerton 17,010 16,832 3.05 16,716 16,976 16,584 3.0 City 20,411 17,237 3.12 17,118 22,808 20,532 3.71 Cookridge 16,493 17,059 3.09 16,941 16,493 16,814 3.04 17,948 17,320 3.13 17,200 16,032 15,449 2.80 He a ding ley 17,085 17,226 3.12 - 17,107 17,085 17,198 3.11 Holbeck 18,440 15,927 2.88 . 15,817 18,090 16,409 2.97 Hors forth 17,174 17,369 3.14 17,249 17,174 17,127 3.10 Huns let 16,438 17,446 3.16 17,679 15,607 16,268 2.94 Kirkstall 17,518 17,040 3.08 16,922 17,518 17,154 3.10 Middleton 16,368 17,382 3.15 19,452 17,700 20,677 3.74 Moortown 14,996 16,683 3.02 16,568 14,996 16,355 2.96 Morley North 16,636 16 ..564 3.00 16,685 16,636 16,973 3.07 Morley South 14,857 16,097 2.91 16,544 14,857 15,135 2.74 North 15,448 . 15,579 2.82 15,472 15,448 15,536 2.81 Otley Wharf edale 15,659 15,924 2.88 15,814 15,659 15,845 2.87 Pudsey North 15,510 15,877 2.87 15,767 15,463 15,703 2.84 Pudsey South 16,494 16,694 3.02 16,579 16,494 16,472 2.98 Richmond Hill 16,434 15,914 2.88 15,804 17,077 16,441 2.97 Rothwell 15,403 16,160 2.92 15,948 14,902 15,413 2.79 Roundhay 15,074 15,708 2.84 15,593 15,108 15,441 2.79 16,146 16,730 3.03 16,615 15,263 15,291 2.77 Stanningley 17,474 17,352 3.14 17,525 15,585 15,605 2.82 University 17,247 15,750 2.85 15,641 16,766 15,614 2.82 Wetherby 13,860 15,095 2.73 14,982 13,850 14,640 2.65 Whinmoor 15,575 16,509 2.99 17,037 16,458 17,914 3.24 " Whitkirk 15,306 16,923 3.06 15,877 15,306 15,548 2.81 Wort ley 15,332 15,430 2.79 15,324 15,307 15,276 2.76

542 , 100 547,072 547,072 542 , 100 547,072

Av. 5476 Av. 5526 Av. 5476 Av. 5526

- 30 - (2) Labour Party's Alternative Scheme It is necessary also to refer to the 1981 (projected)figures which were submitted by the Labour Party with their alternative 99 members scheme for these figures were challenged as inaccurate by the Conservative Party, who also gave their own estimates. These figures were not debated at the meeting. The Labour Party, however, maintained that the figures were accurate but stated that they would be happy to accept figures prepared by an independent officer of the Council. The Planning Officer has now submitted to me his estimates of the 1981 electorates for the Labour Party's suggested wards and these are shown in the following table, which also sets out the estimates of the Labour Party'and also of the Conservative Party:- LABOUR PARTY'S ALTERNATIVE SCHEME

Proposed Wai?ds Labour Party' s Conservative Planning Officer's Estimate Party's Estimate Estimate

1981 1981 Electorate 1981 Electorate Entitlement Electorate Entitlement Before the At the Meeting Meeting

Armley 15,672 2.83 15,072 14,972 14,669 2.65 Beeston/ Holbeck 17,135 3-09 15,471 15,361 17,250 3.12 Bramley 15,728 2.84 13,945 13,835 14,592 2.64 Burmantofts 16,225 2.93 - Agreed - 15,508 2.80 Chapel Allerton 16,832 3.04 - Agreed - 16,573 3.0 City 17,237 3-11 - Agreed - 20,505 3.71 Cookridge 17,059 3.08 - Agreed - 16,814 3.04 Far Headingly 16,046 2.90 13,690 13,570 13,259 2.40 Garforth 18,900 3-41 19,920 22,112 20,984 3.79 Halton 17,800 3-21 16,433 15,387 16,109 2.91 Harehills 17,320 3.13 Agreed 15,449 2,80 Borsforth 15,071 2.72 14,965 14,845 14,856 2.69 Hunslet 17,681 3-19 20,918 21,151 20,584 3.72 Kirkstall 17,^16 3.14 17,44$ 17,323 16,653 3.01 Middleton 17,617 3.18 15,334 16,903 17,825 3.22 Moortown 16,683 3.01 - Agr

548,229 547,072

Av. 5558 Av. 5526

- 32 - These figures confirm that the six Labour Party suggested wards in West Leeds (nansly Armley ward (2.65); Brainley Ward (2.64); Stanningley Ward (2.74); Pudsey North Ward (2.69); Pudsey South Ward (2.6l); and Wortley. Ward 2.65)) are each below the entitlement figure for 3 Gouncillorsand they have a total entitlement of only 15-98 (16) Councillors for the 6 wards, each proposed to return 3 Councillors. In fact, if three further proposed neighbouring wards are taken in (riamely - Far Ward (2.40); Kirkstall ward (3.01); and Horsforth Ward (2.69)) atotal entitlement of only 24.08 (24) Councillors is shown for 9 wards (returning in all 27 Councillors). It would appear, therefore, that in this area in this scheme there is one ward too many. Furltermore, there are the following very large wards which would require some adjustment (namely - City ward - 20,505 electors (3.71 entitlement); Garforth Ward - 20,984 (entitlement 3-79); Hunslet Ward - 20,584 (entitlement 3-72); Otley and Guiseley - 18,996 (entitlement 3.44); and Yeadon and Bramhope Ward - 18,525 (entitlement 3.35). 6. ASSESSMENT OF ARGUMENTS (a) Size of Council As will be seen, the first decision to be taken was as to the size of the Leeds City Council - suggested in the draft sctieme and the Draft Proposals to be 99 members (33 wards), but also suggested in one of the two alternative schemes put forward by the Labour Party, and supported by the Liberal Party and others, to be 108 members (36 wards). Prior to the meeting there had been a strong approach for 108 members, especially after it was known that a recommendation had been made that Manchester, an authority smaller than Leeds in population and electorate, should have a Council of 102 members. , At the meeting, however, it was quickly shown that an almost unanimous agreement had been arrived at between the five constituent Metropolitan Authorities of the County and also the West Yorkshire County Council as to the proposed size of the future County Council (recommended at 92 members), which gave the Leeds City 33 County Councillors, and it therefore seemed sensible that the City should be divided into 33 wards so that each ward would become a County electoral division, and therefore each ward would have 3 City Councillors and 1 County Councillor. (It was realised that it would be most difficult to form 33 County electoral divisions out of 36 wards.) This situation was readily acknowledged by the Labour Party and others and, early in the meeting, the Labour Party decided not to pursue their 108 members scheme, but to press strongly for their alternative 99 members scheme. (b) General submissions as to schemes under consideration The Deputy Leader of the Council (a Conservative member) and the Conservative Party made general observations as to the overriding requirement of achieving numerical equality of electorate figures in each ward and as to some of the difficulties which this

- 33 - had caused in dealing with community areas (although they emphasised that a dividing ward boundary running through a community area did not necessarily break up that community, but sometimes could be said to increase their Councillor representation) and there was-a strong submission that the River Aire, which ran through the whole City area from Aireborough in the north-west to Rothwell and Mickletown in the south-east/was a considerable barrier, both physical and psychological,; and was considered an inevitable boundary between wards. They emphasised that, with a total electorate of 547,072 and a division of 55 wards, the average electorate for each ward was 16,578 and the requirement for wards of this size made the problem more difficult. They said, however, that they considered the draft scheme was a fair attempt to solve this enormously difficult problem. Existing ward boundaries or polling district boundaries had been used wherever possible so that there was not likely to be much change as to the polling stations voters had to use. The Labour Party made strong allegations that the Council's draft scheme (which they called "the Conservative Scheme") was the outcome of political manoeuvering and they said that community interests had been ruthlessly ignored. They submitted that any new ward scheme should be designed to reflect the true political balance of the whole City area and it was claimed that, whereas the Conservative Scheme would give a distorted view,.the Labour Party alternative plan, achieved this true balance. Irrespective of this, they claimed that the Labour Party scheme was a better plan with more satisfactory provision for the community areas. The Liberal Party insisted that it was important to.keep whole communities in wards to maintain, and if possible stimulate, interest in local affairs, with a strongly identifiable community in a ward, a higher vote was achieved and, if communities were split by ward boundary divisions, community interest was eroded and interest in local government suffered. Candidates came forward more easily if they felt they were representing a community rather than just a block of property on a map. As to most of the above general submissions (with the exception of some of the political allegations) I find myself in substantial agreement, for example:- (i) Without doubt, the geography of Leeds and the many integral community districts (particularly those in the areas of those authorities joined to Leeds County Borough in the 1974 reorganisation) and the requirement for numerical equality of ward electorates, with such large wards of some 16,500 electorate, present an extremely difficult problem - not made any easier with the revised ward electorate figures now supplied by the Planning 'Department; (ii) The "barrier" of the River Aire is an understandable factor - but is not quite so significant in the centre City area; (iii) The draft scheme was a fair attempt at a satisfactory ward plan, with particularly good equality of electorate numbers but, in my view, there were a few rather unfortunate instances of communities being badly split, with boundary lines not readily understood by electors and causing great objection (e.g. Rothwell and Horsforth) and there were also some rather unsatisfactory wards which linked smaller "outer" areas with dominant "inner" fringe areas (e.g. Whitkirk Ward, Austhorpe Ward, Middleton Ward, Hunslet Ward and. Worth ward). (/Phese examples are again referred to later.); (iv) 1 cannot agree with the charge that "communities were ruthlessly ignored" but at the same time in some ways 1 believe that the Labour Party plan is a little more sympathetic to community interests. This plan, however, has a number of weaknesses, particularly as to numerical representation - an example of these being the over- representation suggested for the western area of the City and some very high electorate wards (as pointed out earlier in paragraph 5 of this report). There were also some ward links suggested with which 1 could not agree (see later comments on these); and (v) I agree with the submissions as to the important advantages of including whole communities within wards, so obtaining meaningful representation and avoiding, wherever possible, serious breaking of local ties and affiliations. This cannot be achieved in all cases. (c) Parish areas The programme at the meeting of looking at individual areas and wards started with a look at the proposed Otley and Wharfedale Ward with representations that Bast ' Keswick Parish and the Harewood and Wike Ward/of the Harewood Parish were too remote from Otley and should not be included in this ward (but that £ast Keswick (some 722 electors) should be included in Wetherby Ward and that the Harewood and Wike Ward (some 502 electors) should possibly be linked with the other ward (Wigton Ward) of the Harewood Parish in a Ward which would comprise part of the outer fringe of the Leeds County Borough area, because the southern part of the Wigton Parish Ward was really part of the outer fringe of Leeds and was merged' closely with it. At the meeting 1 indicated my agreement with these views, subject to the ward electorate totals accommodating such a change (for the Otley and Wharfedale Ward was already below the average electorate). In this discussion we had to consider the Labour Party alternative plan (which linked Otley Town and Guiseley in one ward and linked Yeadon and Rawdon with Bramhope and adjacent Parishes in another ward). This plan was perhaps primarily designed to deal with the difficult numerical problem of the Aireborough area (see later paragraph) and it gained some support from Otley representatives who said that, if they could not have an Otley and Wharfedale Ward as at present, they would then favour the possibility of an Otley and Guiseley Ward, There were also some contrary views which totally rejected the idea of linking Otley with Guiseley, which views I must say, were confirmed on my later visit to the area. I must record also that I find myself unable to accept a ward of Gtley and Guiseley - Otley approximately 10,500 electors and Guiseley some 8,500 electors; two townships separated by the hill called the Otley Chevin; the only really direct road between the two townships passing through the village of Menston in the neighbouring Bradford area; and surely with the distinct possibility that one or other of these towns might have no Councillor representative, all the three Councillors coming from the other town. 1 feel, therefore, that an Otley and Wharfedale Ward should be approved with the omission of East Keswick and the Harewood and Wike Ward of Harewood Parish, but with some possible addition of areas to the south bordering the Yeadon Areodrome end linked by the Karrogate Road (A.638) - in this way also alleviating the Yeadon and Kawdon and Horsforth electorate problem (see later paragraph). We then considered the representations by Bardsey-cum-Rigton and Scarcroft Parish Councils that they should not be linked (in a North Ward) with areas on the outer fringe of Leeds County Borough area but should be linked with similar rural parishes for good and justifiable reasons. Bardsey-cum-Rigton Parish Council had had conferences and consultation with their neighbours and submitted an alternative scheme for a Worth Ward of nearby parishes plus the Shadwell area and some neighbouring parts of Leeds. This - alternative ward had projected electorate of some 15,500 (entitlement 2.80) but, as I had to point out at the meeting, unfortunately reduced the electorate of other neighbouring wards - particularly leaving Wetherby Ward impossibly isolated in the. north-east corner of the City with an electorate of only 12,738 (entitlement 2.30). Nevertheless, 1 accepted the submission that Bardsey-cum-Rieton and Scarcroft (like their southern neighbour Thorner Parish) would be more satisfactorily accommodated if placed in a "rural" ward - again with the proviso as to satisfactory ward electorate figures. Next ce.me representations from Barwick—in-KLmet and Scholes Parish Council that because of their long and close affiliation the two parts of this Parish should not be split, as 'proposed (Barwick in the Berwick "rural" ward, end Scholes in Whinmoor Ward linked with an "outer" part of Leeds County Borough) but should be together in a "rural" ward. It is not difficult to agree to the submissions made (again subject to numerical electorates of the various wards) but it must be. stated that these two parts of the Parish are about 1-J miles apart and that Scholes is nearer to the Whinmoor area than it is to Barwick-in-Klmet. (d) South-east corner of Leeds City area (including Garforth, Rothwell and Swillin^ton It is now necessary Lo look n\~, l.bo coinpilnx problem ul." l;h«i wards in the south-east corner of the City area. (i) the Draft Proposals (in forming Barwick Ward, Rothwell Ward, Austhorpe Ward, Whitkirk Ward, Hunslet Ward and Middleton Ward)

- 36 - split the township of Garforth (linking three-quarters of the township with the Austhorpe and Manston areas of Leeds County Borough, some 1-J to 2 miles away, and placing the remaining quarter of the township in Berwick Ward, a "rural" ward, which included Kippax and Parishes and mining areas to the south) and also split Rothwell - the major part of the town being in Rothwell Ward but two smaller parts of the town being linked respectively with the Belle Isle and Hunslet areas (over one mile away) and the Middleton area, some similar distance away. Swillington and Great and Little Preston (total some 4,000 electors) had been divorced from this general mining community area and linked with Whitkirk some two miles away; (ii) these Proposals brought many strong objections because of the division of existing ward areas, the division of townships and the rather unsatisfactory links with outer fringe areas of former Leeds County Borough; and (iii) the Labour Party put forward alternative ward proposals, namely:- Garfprth ward - comprising Garforth (whole), some small part of Austhorpe (in Leeds County Borough area), some rur&l parishes to the north, and the northern part of Kippax (1981 projected electorate later assessed for this ward was 20,894 (entitlement 3-79) - a very high figure). Swillington Ward - comprising Swillington, Great and Little Preston, the southern half of Kippax,' Ledston, Ledsham and Ailerton Bywater and Oulton and Woodlesford (1981 electorate later assessed at 17,842 (entitlement 3.25)). Hothwell Ward - comprising Rothwell and Lofthouse (with its western boundary being the 11.1 motorway) and Mickletown (1981 electorate later assessed at 16,139 (2.92)). Wards had then been formed to comprise the fringe areas of the Leeds built-up area of Manston, Austhorpe and Whitkirk. In assessing the arguments and plans put forward, my views are as follows:- (A) Unless there is no other ward pattern possible because of the requirement of equality of electorate numbers, 1 am very mucja against proposals for wards which link parts of outlying townships (or even the outlying townships wholly) with fringe areas of the City built-up area, especially when the linked areas are so widely separated, and 1 regard as most unsatisfactory (i) the proposed Austhorpe Ward (linking three-quarters of Garforth with Austhorpe and Manston) more especially too because Garforth, some total 11,000 electorate, is split into two parts and the town, which was an Urban District, no longer would give its name to a ward); (ii) Whitkirk Ward linking the Whitkirk area of Leeds with Swillington and Great and Little Preston - so swamping elector-ally the latter areas; and (iii) Hunslet

- 37 - Ward and hiddleton Ward for the same reason of the linking of Leeds built-up areas with outlying parts of townships and especially here because of the drastic division of the Rothwell town area into three parts; (B) I find more favourable the Labour Party alternative plan, for here is a good attempt to link similar areas together. There are, however, features in this plan which 1 do not like and cannot recommend - for example (i) the projected .electorate of the suggested Garfortn 'ward is far too high and 1 am not sure that linking Garforth with rural areas to the north is the linking together of similar areas; (ii) I regard the inclusion of Oulton and Woodlesford in the Swillington Ward as unsatisfactory, for this would sever close ties which these areas have always had with Hothwell; and (iii) the split of Kippax and the placing of the respective north and south parts of this township into two separate wards is most unfortunate, especially as there is no really identifiable boundary between the two parts. I came to the conclusion that some new ward pattern should be sought here which would attempt to meet the major objections and at the same time would avoid very serious severances and unsatisfactory links. In general terms I feel that the most satisfactory pattern in this difficult area (linking similar areas together) would be:- (i) A Garforth and Swillington Ward - linking the whole of Garforth with Swillington and Great and Little Preston,, and adding into this Ward Mickletown and Methley. These latter areas are admittedly on the other side of the rtiver Aire, but likely to be severed in some way from the Rothwell, Oulton and Woodlesford area by the new H.62-A.1 link motorway;. (ii) A Rothwell Ward - comprising the Ouluon and Woodlesford area and the whole of Rothwell town and embracing as much of the area west of the town towards the M.I motorway as the numerical equality requirement will allow; and (iii) A Barwick and Kippax Ward - comprising the rural area along the eastern boundary of the Leeds City area from Scarcroft Parish in the north to Ledston and Ledsham in the south and including the whole of Kippax, but omitting Garforth. (This is the same ward (Barwick Ward) as proposed in the Draft Proposals with the exception of (a) the exclusion of the one-quarter part of Garforth town (revised electorate figures more recently supplied make this possible) and (b) the inclusion of Scarcroft Parish. I would have liked to have included the Scholes part of the Barwick in Elmet and ocholes Parish, but I fear the 1981 electorate figures will not allow Scholes to be included. As 1 have said above, however, bcholes is closely linked to the Whinmoor area of Leeds and I believe that it will not be necessary to recommend other than a very slight alteration of the proposed Whinmoor Ward.) (iv) The formation of a new ward (similar to the Halton Ward suggested by the Labour Party) and comprising the areas of Manston, Halton, Wh'itkirk, Colton and Austhorpe (the Labour Party omitted this). There would then be a new appraisal of the areas of the Hunslet Ward and the Hiddleton Ward adding no outer areas into Hunslet Ward but adding the minimum area of the western fringes of Kothwell into Fliddleton Ward (by sheer force of circumstances this would necessarily be parts of Rothwell Haigh and Lofthouse). (e) Churwell area Strong representations, including a petition, were submitted as to the Proposal for the exclusion of the Churwell area (some 1,840 electors) from the Morley North Ward. This small area had been taken out of Morley no doubt to accommodate the electorate figures and also to give added electorate to Beeston 'Ward. Churwell was an area previously in the Borough of Morley and had long associations with it and there was certainly mystification and some anger at the proposal to move this district into another ward. The Labour Party, in their alternative plan, brought this area back into Norley (with 1981 electorates later assessed for Morley North Ward 17,981 .(5.^5) and Morley South Ward 16,422 (2.97)) and I favour this suggestion but with an improved dividing boundary between the two wards to give better equality of electorate. (f) Western part of the Leeds City area (including Pudsey, Stanningley, Bramley and Armleyj, We now come to consideration of the problem of the wards in the western part of the City area, with very strong objections received to the Draft Proposals, for it was said that the eastern boundary of the proposed Bramley and Armley Ward divided the Armley community area and the south eastern part of Armley was "lost" in a proposed Holbeck Ward - the Holbeck area, the electorate of which was diminishing rapidly, being physically separated from Armley by barriers of railways, a new motorway extension and a wide industrial area. Bramley and Armley "Ward (from 1981 projected electorate figures later submitted) also now appears too large at I9i795 (5-58) but conversely, as I have shown above, the Labour Party's alternative plan forms five wards here (namely, Armley, BranLey, Stanningley, Pudsey North and Pudsey South Wards) which are all below the average electorate number and, if Ward, Kirkstall Ward and Horsforth ward are also brought into calculation, the electorate figures show that in their scheme there is one ward too many in this western part of the City. I have accepted that every effort should be made to avoid divisions of community areas and 1 acknowledge that the Draft Proposal Wards are somewhat unsatisfactory here - particularly so far as Armley is concerned. I concluded, therefore, that a new ward pattern should be sought here. The Pudsey wards set out in the Draft Proposals included small areas previously within the City County Borough Wards -

- 39 - namely, in Pudsey North the whole of Kodley was included (although part of Rodley was previously in Leeds County Borough) and in Pudsey South Ward part of the Swinnow Moor Estate was included. The Labour Party's alternative plan, however, formed wards which did not bring in these fringe areas. At the meeting there was some discussion as to the split of the Swinnow Moor Estate and 1 wish now to say that I agree with the inclusion of the whole of Rodley, and go further and now suggest that the whole of Swinnow Moor Estate and Hough End be brought into the Morley South Ward. I am suggesting a slightly amended division boundary to obtain an equality of electorate numbers for these two wards. Having decided to recommend that the Pudsey Wards be slightly enlarged, I then looked again at the Stanningley, Bramley and Armley area and recalculated the 1981 electorate figures (from the new revised estimates) for the area bounded by the River Aire; the Holbeck physical boundary previously referred to; the northern boundary of Wortley Ward; and the eastern boundaries of the Pudsey Wards. This showed an electorate of some 37*000 and I saw that, if approximately 4-,000 electors could satisfactorily be moved to another ward or wards (and I was looking closely at (a) the new Wortley area, south east of HM Prison and (b) the area of Gamble Hill and Swallow Hill bounded by Stanningley By-Pass; Pudsey Road/ Tong Road; Whingate; and the Leeds-Vudsey railway line) then very satisfactory wards - a Bramley Ward and an Armley Ward could be formed which would meet almost all the objections which had been made. (g) Aireborough, Horsforth and Kirkstall (and Otley) areas As most wards are inter-related, it is perhaps best to continue my assessment of the arguments put forward sit the meeting - now as to Aireborough Ward, Horsforth Ward and Kirkstall Ward. The representations as to the Aireborough area (Guiseley, Yeadon and Rawdon) clearly demonstrated the dilemma presented by the requirement of numerical equality of ward electorates, for here was a former Urban District area in a protruding pocket of the City area and bounded on the north with the physical barrier of the Otley Chevin. In forming wards here one has to start at the City's western boundary and mafcfc off an" area of some 16,000 to 17,9^ electors. That inevitably brings one here to a line which divides a community area and after that one has an. even more difficult decision to make as to how to deal with the remaining area of part of Yeadon and Rawdon. The Draft Proposals divided Yeadon (and there were many objections as to the unsuitability of the dividing line) and then added the remaining part of Yeadon and Rawdon to the major part of Horsforth. This then caused further difficulty for the remaining part of Horsforth, namely Horsforth Woodside with some 3,250 electors, was added into Kirkstall Ward - and this latter proposal brought by far the largest number of angry comments and objections, there being an overwhelming plea for Horsforth to form a ward on its own. An alternative plan was submitted by the Horsforth Community Association which, as I have shown earlier, was not really satisfactory. On this, I have to point out that the 1981 electorate figures show that having a ward comprising only the Horsforth area would be a small ward (14,856 electors - 2.69). Finaly, there weflfc Labour Party objections for party political reasons to the Kirkstall Ward being drawn to include the West

- 40 - Park area (east of the Leeds-Horrogate railway line) and not to include the Hurley area to the south east (an area long associated with Kirkstall). 1 must record that I have every sympathy with, and support, the dismay aU the Yeadon dividing boundary line; the concern as to the Yeadon and Hawdon area; the plea that Horsforth should not lose almost one quarter of its area into Kirkstall (the physical boundaries of what was Hor-sforth Urban District could not be clearer cut); and the political concern as to the boundaries of Kirkstall Ward. The Labour Party's alternative plan suggested an Otley and Guiseley Ward ( a large ward of 18,^96 electors (3-44) on which I have already commented adversely); a Yeadon and Bramhope Ward which had much to commend it but which also was too large with 18,52^ electors O-35); a Horsforth Ward comprising Horsforth only but somewhat small; and a Kirkstall 'ward omitting some part of West Park but including Burley (16,655 electors (5.01)). My first two decisions and recommendations for the wards here are (1) I do not like the suggested Otley and Guiseley Ward and cannot recommend it - therefore, I recommend the retention of the proposed Aireborough Ward with some slight amendment to the Yeadon boundary and comprising the maximum electorate that reasonable equality figures will allow; and (2) I feel that Horsforth Woodside should be included back into Horsforth Ward. Other decisions'then naturally follow from the above decisions for with the acceptance of the whole of Horsforth into the Horsforth Ward (which if not added to would make a rather small ward) coupled with the fact that Otley and Wharfedale Ward (as earlier recommended with the loss of East Keswick and the Harewood and Wike Ward of Harewood Parish) is also reduced in electorate, there is an opportunity for consideration of attaching suitable areas of Yeadon (the remaining small part) and Rawdon into either Otley and Wharfedale. Ward or Horsforth Ward, Having studied this area, and confirmed my impression by visits, I now recommend (1) that the eastern boundary of Aireborough Ward be along Micklefield Lane, thence along Harrogate Road to its junction with Windmill Lane, thence along Windmill Lane to the high Street, thence north- eastwards along Dam Lane, thence along; the southeastern border of Yeadon Tarn, thence northwestwards to Cemetery Road and thence northeastwards along Cemetery Road-to the proposed boundary of Otley and Wharfedale Road; (2) that the area lying to the east and north of Cemetery Rosd, Yeadon Tarn, Dam Lane, Windmill Lane, • Harrogate Road, Leeds Road, Mill Lane, the eastern boundary of the cricket ground and the football ground in Larkfield Road and a line in a northeasterly direction to Middle Reservoir, Lower Reservoir and Scotland Beck (in Horsforth) be added into Otley and Wharfedale Ward; and (3) that'the remaining part of Rawdon (namely to the south of Hicklefield Lane, Leeds Road, Mill Lane and the new Otley and Wharfedale Ward boundary line to the Horsforth Ward boundary, be added to the Horsforth area (less the area to the north of the Reservoirs and Scotland Beck referred to in (2) above) to form Horsforth Ward. It will be noted that the recommendation set out in (2) above transfers the northern part of Horsforth adjacent to the Airport (some 55 electors only) into Otley and Wharfedale Ward along with areas of Yeadon and Kawdon and this will have the advantage that the whole of the Yeadon airport (which serves Leeds and Bradford areas) and its immediate surrounding area will be in one ward (namely Otley and Wharfedale Ward). 1 also recommend that Kirkstsll ,vard be as recommended by the Labour Party, but with a revised northern boundary of Butcher Hill (so excluding the West Park area north of that road) and as well as including the Hurley area also to include the Burley Lawn area at the south east corner of the ward. (h) Other Wards It will be appreciated that, in this complex ward pattern, to effect the ward changes which I am now recommending consequent changes have to be made in other wards in the City, for each change has a "ripple" effect on neighbouring wards. Nevertheless, a somewhat detailed study of these wards has evolved a pattern of wards which 1 now recommend and which I feel will be well received by the political parties and the electors generally. These are included in the following list of wards with explanatory notes. NEW WARD PATTERN I have already outlined irusas as to the formation of wards in areas which were the subject or the many objections and representations and 1 have also pointed out that the new 1981 projected electorate figures make necessary the re-appraisal of other wards in the Draft Proposals (as well as many of the wards suggested in the Labour Party's alternative scheme). To give a complete picture of the new ward pattern which I now suggest for Leeds City, I list below the wards in some order of logical consideration - starting with the outer boundary areas, then werds on the outer fringe of the old Leeds County Borough area and finally the inner wards. For each ward I set out explanatory notes as to relevant considerations and decisions. Following the sequence of this report 1 should perhaps start with Otley and Wharfedale Ward but this is so tied up with the Aireborough and Horsforth areas that 1 commence with Wetherby Ward. (1) WETHERBY WARD To comprise the area as in Draft Proposals (new electorate figure - 14,640) with addition of East Keswick C.E. (7$6) and Bardsey-curn-Rigton C.P. (1629). (Scarcroft C.P. (627) not included because of electorate numbers but included in Barwick and Kippax Ward below.) Electorate - 17,003 (Entitlement 3.08) (2) BARW1GK AND KIPPAX WARD To comprise the area of Barwick Ward as in Draft Proposals (new electorate figure 19,036) LESS south-east part of Garforth town ($169) PLUS Scarcroft C.P. (62?).

- 42 - Kippax contributes over 7000 electors to this ward - therefore suggest adding Kippax to title of ward. Electorate - 16,494 (2.98) (3) GARFORTH AND SWILLINGTQN WARD This forms an "outer" area ward and includes the whole of Garforth town and links similar areas of Swillington, Great and Little Preston, and Mickletown and Hethley (these two latter areas are included to facilitate a better all-round area for Rothwell ward and also because new M.62 - A.I link road is likely to run between Rothwell and Mickletown). Electorate perhaps a little high but acceptable. Electorate - 17,477 (3-16) (4) ROTHWELL WARD This has, as its nucleus, the whole central area of Rothwell, Oulton and ^Joodlesford and takes in as much of outlying area to west as is reasonable (to take any more would bring in large blocks of electorates e.g. Lofthouse). Disappointing not to be able to make M.I. motorway the western boundary of this ward. (The areas just outside the ward (to the west) must of necessity go into Hiddleton Ward - but not also into Hunslet/ Ward). Electorate - '* (5) MQRLEY SOUTH WARD (6) MORLEY NORTH WARD The Draft Proposals wards omitted Churwell (214-0) and have new electorate figures of 15135 (2.74) and 16973 (3.07). Now suggested that Churwell be added back into Morley North Ward and the dividing boundary between the two wards be re-aligned (an equally satisfactory boundary). Electorates: Horley South Ward - 17,417 (3.15) Morley North Ward - 16,995 (3.07) (7) FUDSEY SOUTH WARD (8) PUDSEY NORTH WARD The suggested wards now take into Pudsey South V/ard the whole of Swinnow Moor Estate (making the Stanningley By-Pass the eastern boundary of this ward) and adds some 1958 electors. To accommodate this addition the dividing boundary is realigned. Electorates: Pudsey South Ward - 16,701 (3-02) Pudsey North Ward - 17,432 (3.15) (9) AIHEBQRQUGH WARD The ideal eastern boundary would be the Harrogate Hoad and Victoria Avenue but electorate figures preclude this. Now suggested bhat the Draft Proposals Ward boundary be slightly amended (to meet strong objections) to line of Micklefield Lane, Harrogate Road (as previously) and then along Windmill Lane, Dam Lane and the eastern bank of Yeadon Tarn and to Cemetery Lane. Electorate a little high but considered acceptable in circumstances. Electorate - 18,139 (3.291 (10) OTLEY AND WHARFEDALE WARD Having rejected idea of an Gtley and Guiseley Ward, now suggested that this ward should be as in Draft Proposals (.new electorate 15,8^5) LESS East Keswick C.P. (736) and Harewood and Wike Parish Ward (551) PLUS part of Yeadon and Rawdon and small northern part of Horsforth

Electorate - 17,316 (3.131 (11) HQRSFORTH WARD This suggested ward brings back into Draft Proposals ward the Horsforth Woodside area ($102) but takes out part of Horsfortn north of Scotland Beck and the Reservoirs (55) a small part of Yeadon and some northern part of Rawdon (34-95)- Horsforth on its own would be small at 14856 electors. Electorate - 16,679 (3.02). (12) NORTH WARD Having placed Bardsey-cum-Rigton C.P. in Wetherby vJard and Scarcroft C.P. in Berwick and Kippax Ward and taken Harewood and v/ike Parish Ward out of Otley and Wharfedale "Ward, it is necessary to form a new North Ward. First considered that whole of Harewood C.P. could be included in this ward for southern part of Parish, at , is virtually part of built-up area. Then considered main Ring Road in northern part of Leeds to be a general boundary line to be readily accepted and also considered Adel Beck (now an existing ward boundary) a good boundary between North Ward and Cookridge Ward. At one time thought to include Shadwell but electorate figures preclude this. Electorate - 16,083 (2.91) (13) GOOKRIDGS WARD To comprise area as in Draft Proposals PLUS Adel area (in present Cookridge Ward) but LESS the Lawnswood and Ireland Wood areas (suggested now to be added to West Park and areas to form new ward (Weetwood 'Ward) - see below. Electorate - 16,245 (2.940

- 4-4- - (14) WKSTWOOD WARD This suggested new ward is formed naturally by linking Lawnswoqd and Ireland Wood areas with West Park and Weetwood, and iiesbetween' and the Fleanwood Hospital and Playing yields area east of Parkside Road and Stainbeck. Suggested southern boundary along St. Annes Road, Grove Lane, Stainbeck Road.

Electorate - 15,979 (2-89) MOORTOWM WARD Having decided upon the Ring Road as suggested southern boundary of North Ward, then sought a suitable area south of Ring Road for noortown Ward - this lies between area (Parkside Road) on west to Kingswood Gardens and Talbot Road on east. This ward is contiguous with Chapel Allerton Ward to the south,

Electorate - 16,500 (2.99) (16) ROUNDHAY WARD To comprise area as in Draft Proposals (new electorate but slightly amended to transfer to Whinmoor Ward small area at- Wellington Hill (34) and to take in a small additional ares south of Shadwell Lane, and also with a revised western boundary with Moortown Ward. Electorate - 16,276 (2.94) (17) WHINMOOR WARD ' To comprise areaas in Draft Proposals (new electorate 17,914) LESS Monkswood area west of Ring Road PLUS small adjoining area at Wellington.Hill. (This ward still retains the Scholes part of Barwick in Klmet and Scholes C.P. Electorate figures precluded inclusion of Scholes in Barwick and Kippax Ward and Scholes electorate needed in Jhinmoor Ward. In any event Scholes is close to Whinmoor). Electorate - 15,666 (2.85). • (18) HALTON WARD This is a new suggested ward, and follows recommended policy of forming wards of sections of the outer fringe built-up area (rather than link parts with outlying "rural" parishes some distance away). This ward similar to Halton v.ard suggested by Labour Party but includes slightly different areas. Has somewhat low electorate but this ward includes Colton area where new housing development is to take place but where completions are now delayed until, after 1981 but with possible additional 2,700 dwellings. Electorate - 15,^11 (2.75)

- 45 - (19) HUHSLKT WARD This is a modification of Draft Proposals Ward by omitting bhe part of Rothwell town area and making M.I motorway the southeastern boundary. Southern boundary is Middleton Ring Road and ward now includes an area west of M.I the site of new housing development. Electorate - 16,322 (2.99) (20) MIDPIiKPON WARD This ward now has amended eastern boundary. It no longer takes in part of Rothwell town but now includes Lofthouse. The boundary in Belle Isle estate is slightly amended. The new electorate for Draft Proposals ward was 20,667 but now ward has - Electorate - 16,349 (2.96) (21) BEESTON WARD This, ward now omits Ghurwell and has a revised northern and eastern boundary. Electorate - 16,220 (2.93) (22) WORTLEY WARD This ward is similar to the Draft Proposals Ward (revised electorate 15,276) but now has a slightly revised eastern boundary (the Leeds-Morley railway line instead of Gelderd Road) and at north-east corner (transferring some 1350 electors to City and Holbeck Ward) and takes in some 3300 .electors in Swallow Hill and Gamble Hill (south of Leeds - Pudsey railway line). This latter transfer facilitates amendments in Bramley and Armley area (see below).

Electorate - 16,869 (3.03) (23) BRAMLEY WARD This ward is formed from Draft Proposals Stanningley Ward LESS Swinnow Moor and Hough End, and some properties south of Stanningley Road PLUS that part of the Draft Proposals Bramley and Armley Ward lying between Bath Lane/Hough Lane, Lower Town Street and Stanningley Road. .Electorate - 16,900 (3*06) (24-) ARMLEY WARD.

Thisverd designed to take in as much of whole Armley area as possible and to ensure that Armley not split in its central area. It is suggested that south-eastern boundary be along line of Hew Wortley Cemetery and H.M. Prison. This will ensure that City and Holbeck Ward takes in wholly the area adjacent to Wellington Road and the industrial, road and rail complex. ? (Ajb stated above, Swallow Hill and Gamble Hill transferred^to Wortley Ward to facilitate this Armle.y Ward (and. BramleyfWard)) „ 4 ' -Electorate - 17,564 (3.14) (25) KIRKSTALL WARD [ ': t This suggested ward omits Hor.-sforth Woodside (now back in Horsforth Ward-) and also West Park north of Butcher's Hill but now includes. Burley, as suggested by Labour Party, and also an area in Hurley Lawn. Electorate - 15,986 (2.89) i (26) HEADINGLKY WARD ' This ward has been formed with a revised northern boundary along St. Anne's Road and Grove Lane (southern boundary of Weetwood Ward) and the southern boundary is now along Alexandra Road and Hyde Park Road. Electorate - 16,048 (2.90) (2?) CHAPEL ALLERTON WARD This ward, too, has been revised to bring its northern and southern boundaries further south - but comes down to a natural southern boundary of Meanwood Beck and Barrack Street Electorate 16,906 (3*06) (28) HAREHILLS WARD This ward is- similar to1 Draft Proposals Ward with its southern boundary slightly amended ,and taking in the Fearnville area from Seacroft Ward. Electorate - 16,433 (2.98) (29) BURIUNTOFTS WARD This ward is similar to Draft Proposals 'ward but omits Parklands on the east and an area north-west of Stoney Rock Lane and Foundry Approach and includes the area and Seacroft Hospital. Electorate - 13.402 (2.79) (30) SEACROFT WARD This ward slightly amends the Draft Proposals Ward to make the Ring Road its eastern boundary. The ward omits Pearnville but takes in Parklands as well as Monkswood Estate properties. Electorate - 16,636 (3.01) (51) RICHMOND HILL WARD This is the Draft Proposals 'Ward with addition of the Saxton Gardens area on its western boundary. Electorate - 16,736 (3.03) (32) CITY AND HOLBECK WARD This is the southern half of the remaining area of the whole City with a northern boundary of (from Burley) Kirkstall Road, West Street, the Inner Hing Road (A.58) and New York Road. This ward straddles River Aire but here in the City centre this is surely not important. Holbeck provides most of the electorate here - hence the suggestion to include it in the ward title. Electorate - 13.396 (2.82) (33) UNIVERSITY WARD This is northern half of central area running north up to Hyde Park and Neanwood Beck and including many of the University Buildings. Electorate - 17.103 (3.09)

TOTAL ELECTORATE OF CITY - 54-7,072 AVERAGE PER COUNCILLOR - 3,326

8. VISITS and THANKS I commenced my study of the Leeds plan with some local knowledge of the Leeds area, particularly the northern part and, including the two days of the local meeting, I have spent five days in Leeds and have visited Otley, Guiseley, Yeadon, Rawdon, Horsforth, Stanningley, Bramley, Armley, Wortley, Holbeck, Hunslet and Richmond Hill, Rothwell, Swillington, Kippax, Garforth, Halton, the Berwick area, the Wetherby area, Harewood, Moortown and the City and University areas. I wish to express my special thanks to the Council, the Chief Executive and his staff for their courtesy and assistance, particularly to Mr. R.W.E. Hudson, Elections Officer, from whom I have sought and obtained a mass of detailed information as to electorates, and also to Mr. Hugh Thornton of the City Planning Department. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend that the Metropolitan District (the City) of Leeds be divided into 33 Wards (each to return 3 Councillors) as outlined and named in paragraph 7 of this Report and as more particularly delineated on the map accompanying this Report at Appendix "B" and described in the Ward boundary descriptions set out in Appendix "C". 10. APPENDICES APPENDIX "A" - List of names and addresses of persons present at the Local Meeting (2 days) and where appropriate, the organisations they represented. APPENDIX "B" - flap of the City (Scale: 1:25,000) showing the Wards now recommended. APPENDIX "C" - Description of boundaries of Wards now recommended.

--_ v— -.'-*• 3/ January, 1978 APPENDIX "A"

LOCAL MEETING DECEMBER 1977

ATTENDANCE SHEEP

NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING R.W.E. Hudson Civic Hall, Leeds Leeds City Council J. Dransfield Civic Hall, Leeds Leeds City Council A.D. Bolton Yorkshire Post D.R. Pitts Yorkshire Evening Post Moira A. Dunn Aireborough Labour Party Observer Mrs. Elsie Hutchinson Aireborough Labour Party Observer John R. Glover West Yorkshire Metropolitan Observer County Council David Bland Leeds Metropolitan Liberal Association Margaret Clay 35 Novell Terrace, Leeds ^. Burmantofts/Richmond Hill Liberal Association Winifred Harford 154 Hawksworth Road, Horsforth Doreen Wootton 29 Newlaithes Road, Horsforth Eric Atkinson 22 Raynville Mount, Leeds 13- Bramley Ward Labour Party (Leeds City Councillor) K. Houghton 90 Boroughgate, Otley Ripon Constituency Conservative Association C.W. Lamb Cherry Trees, Bardsey Bardsey Parish Council N.D. Crossfield 30 Broadgate Walk, Councillor (Leeds City Councillor) Horsforth, LS18 4HF Cockerham Barwick Observer D. Gibbon 33 East View, Yeadon Yeadon Campaign Mrs. E. Fabian Earnshaw Collingham, Wetherby Churwell R. Smith 41 Station Lane, Thorpe, Thorpe Wakefield M.J. Rothwell 14 Victoria Walk, Horsforth Horsforth Community Association J.H. Dickinson 42 Clyde Court, Leeds 12. Observer N. Willey 5 Crow Trees Park, Rawdon Aireborough Civic Society B. Smith 168 Green Hill Road, Leeds 13. Armley Society Barbara Burton 92 Hawksworth Road, Horsforth Horsforth Mrs. R. Lund 32 North Lane, Oulton Rothwell (Leeds City Councillor) S.M. Samwell 4 Nook Road, Scholes, Barwick in Elmet and LS15 4AU Scholes Parish Council R.J. Donkin 11 Commercial Street, Batley Morley Observer - 2 -

NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING R.A. Marling 9 Grange Avenue, Garforth Garforth Community Association LS25 1HQ J.S. Brodwell 50 Jackson Drive, Horsforth Horsforth Civic Society W.H. Tyrants Norwood, Broadgate Lane, Horsforth Horsforth A. Tymms Norwood, Broadgate Lane, Horsforth Horsforth Mr. B. Pitts West Yorkshire Metropolitan Observer County Council G.A. Wootton 29 Newlaithes Road, Horsforth Horsforth Conservative Association R. Hughes-Rowlands 20 Parkside, Horsforth Conservative Party R. Hills The Grange, Bardsey, Leeds Bardsey E.H. Christ man 35 Back Lane, Horsforth Observer T. McCarthy Kirklees House, Huddersfield Kirklees Metropolitan Council G. Francis 12 North Avenue, Otley Leeds City Council (Leeds City Councillor) Councillor Mrs. C. Wyers 16 Moorfield, Bramley, Leeds City Council (Leeds City Councillor) Leeds 13- W,M. Venters 9 Lynton Avenue, Huddersfield B.B.C. Radio Leeds . P,G.J. White 205 Roundhay Road, Leeds 8. North East Leeds Conservative Association Miss J. Kemp 11J Broadway, Horsforth Observer Carol Gamble 8 Westbourne Crescent, Garforth Labour Party Garforth Beryl Gamble 8 Westbourne Crescent, Garforth Labour Party Garforth Edmind Clare 27 St. Margarets Road, Horsforth Pat Walker 16 Moor Drive, Otley Otley Liberal Party M. J 5 Lickless Terrace, Horsforth Horsforth Councillor E.H. Morris 115 Kirkdale Crescent, Leeds (Leeds City Councillor) LS12 A. Holt 12 Westwood Way, Boston Spa Bardsey Parish Council W.H. Goodwill 52 Cross Flatts Terrace, Leeds South Labour Party Leeds 11. A. Patch Horsforth News M. Platters 2 Church Avenue, Swillington Swillington Parish Council F. Deighton 29 St. Margarets Avenue, Horsforth Horsforth E. Deighton 29 St. Margarets Avenue, Horsforth Horsforth R. Thompson 121 Hall Lane, Horsforth Horsforth Charity Ball Committee - 5 -

NAME . ADDRESS REPRESENTING Councillor M.J.Meadowcroft 29 The Towers, Armley Leeds City Council Liberal (Leeds City Councillor) Group E.A. Wat kins on 3 Moorland Terrace, Garforth Garforth Labour Party Mark Daws on 1 Grange View Gardens, Skyrack Express Leeds 1?- Alfred Tallant 5 Park Crescent, Leeds 8. Observer Mrs. Margaret Gledhill 205 Roundhay Road, Leeds 8. Leeds Conservative Association J.B. Stevens 5 Town Close, Horsforth Pudsey Liberal Association Chris Greenfield 12 Brentwood Terrace, Armley, West Yorkshire County Council (County Councillor) Leeds 12. Liberal Group Councillor Peter Sparling 85 Old Park Road, Leeds 8. Leeds City Council (Leeds City Councillor) L.W. KeateB 8 North Parade, Leeds 16. • Leeds North West Liberal Association H. Slocombe 18 ELmete Mount, Leeds Pudsey Conservatives J. Timlin City Hall, Bradford Observer B.N. Spencer 7 Mount Pleasant, Horsforth Observer A.R. Sykes City Hall, Bradford Observer S. Pollard Kirklees House, Huddersfield Kirklees Metropolitan Council S.V. Tempest 17 Church Street, Morley Morley Civic Society R.V. Cave Birmingham G.R.O. Observer J.T. Smith Birmingham Observer Anne Bolton Normanton Mid-Yorkshire Federation P. Cheverton-Brown Conservative Office, Barkston Ash Conservative Holgate Lane, Boston Spa Association J.A. Dudleston Welfare Hall, Gaxforth Garforth Community Association D.M. Selby 7 Abbey Avenue, Leeds 5« Leeds Metropolitan Liberal Federation 0. Ramsden Wood View, Churwell Churwell Miss P. Coombes 2 Mitford Road, Armley Observer John S. Dixon Jl The Towers, Leeds 12. West Leeds Labour Party B. Ward 22 Springhead Road, Rothwell Observer G.E. Nutter Rigton House, East Keswick Bardsey Parish Council A. Radford 40 Lee Lane (East), Horsforth Horsforth Labour Party P. Thurwell 50 Holmsley Lane, Woodlesfoed Lofthouse Aged Persons Welfare Committee, Rothwell Labour Party R.H. Howe 80 Southway, Horsforth Pudsey Constituency Liberal Association T.L. Iceton 11 Christchurch View, Armley Defence Committee Armley, Leeds ?. Siddall 8 St.Ives Mount, Armley, Armley Defence Committee Leeds. - 4 - NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING C.E. McCourt 59 Manor Road, Rothwell North West Branch Rothwell Labour Party W.H. Banks 8 Spibey Crescent, Rothwell Rothwell District (County Councillor) D.B. Matthews 2 Stone Villas, Leeds 6. City of Leeds Labour Party (County Councillor) Norman Jones 58 Park Square, Leeds 1 Leeds Labour Party Harold Sims Techno House, Northgate, Regional Organiser Wakefield Labour Party Richard D. Good 104 St. David's Road, Otley Otley Town Council (Councillor) (Otley Town Council) Audrey Slee 48 Tredgold Avenue, Bramhope Ripon Constituency Labour Party M*A, Harrison 5 Prospect Place, Horsforth Horsforth Civic Society H. Hall Hillrise, 39 Old Road, Churwell Churwell W. Panton 11 Button Avenue, Bradford Bradford Labour Party

E. Barlowt 15 Victoria Crescent, Horsfprth Labour Party Horsforth J. Hixon Marlborough House, Scarcroft Scarcroft Parish Council Allstair Lawrence Home Farm Square, Observer / Horsforth Paraby Hall, Otley H.R.V. Mate 4 Carlton Avenue, Rothwell Rothwell R.H. Ives Barwick in Elmet Barwick in Elmet and (Leeds City Councillor) Scholes Parish Council E. Link 15 Bardon Grove, Armley, Armley Society Leeds Bob Spragg 65 Town Street, Leeds 12 Armley Defence Committee Ed Walley 39 Simpson Grove, Leeds 12. Annley Society Ernest Heaton 25 Whitecote Gardens, Leeds l Bramley Eileen L. Phillips 24 Allerton Drive, E.Keswick East Keswick Parish Council Susan Lupton Field House, East Keswick East Keswick Parish Council Councillor G. Moakes 12 Astley Lane, Swillington, Kippax/Great Preston/ (Leeds City Councillor) Leeds Allerton Bywater/Ledston/ Swillington People Councillor H. Morgan 77 St. Richards Road, Otley Otley Town Council (Otley Town Councillor) G.D. Edmondson 40 Victoria Mount, Horsforth Horsforth Liberal Association Basil Lott 13 Cotswold Road, Rothwell Private Elector H. Hall 39 Old Road, Churwell Churwell E. Kenniwell 10 Hapsbury Court, Bradford 5 Bradford Labour Party L. MacPherson 45 North Park Grove, Leeds 8. Leeds Liberal Federation - 5 - NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING E. Jenkins 28 Bardon Place, Leeds 12. B. Peter 80 Riverside Park, Otley Ripon Constituency Liberal Association D.R. Maude 32 Briarlea Close, Yeadon Aireborough Liberal Association E. Thompson 76 Mountbatten Crescent, Normanton C.L.P. Outwood Arthur Tate 2 Whingate Close, Leeds 12. Armley Advice and Community Centre D.M. Hall 8 Drury Avenue, Horsforth M.S. Cliff 62 Rycroft Green, Leeds 1J. Stanningley Labour Party Councillor G.E. Mudie 4 Temple Close, Leeds 15. East Leeds Labour Party (Leeds City Councillor) V. Watson Moses Syke, Scarcroft Clerk, Scarcroft Parish Council F.E. Redhead Vicarage, Beech Grove, Rothwell and District Civic Rothwell Society E. Mate The Hanwood, Carlton Lane, Rothwell E. Cowin 8 Oakwood Road, Wetherby N.AiL.G.O. C.H. Brown The Beeches, Sandhills, Thorner P.C. Thorner R.M. Bartlett 3 Ashbourne Crescent, Garforth and Kippax Garforth Conservative Association B. White 78 Fairburn Drive, Garforth Garforth and Kippax Conservative Association David Austick Cross Green, Otley Yorks. Liberal Federation S.J. Greenwood 14 Lodge View, Leeds 12. Armley and Castleton C.L.P. S.A. Ott 15 North Place, Bramley, Conservative Party Group Leeds H. Ibbetson 29 Colenso Place, Leeds Holbeck Community . D. Chadvick 10 Landseer View, Leeds 13- Bramley Labour Party John M. Sully 5 Primley Park Road, Leeds 17 Observer (County Councillor) H. Thornton Merrion House, Leeds Leeds City Council Planning Dept. -J. Towns end Merrion House, Leeds Leeds City Council Planning Dept. LOCAL MEETING

UTH DECEMBER 1977

ATTENDANCE SHEET

NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING

R.W.E. Hudson Civic Hall, Leeds Leeds City Council J. Dransfield Civic Hall, Leeds Leeds City Council T.D. Bland Liberal Offices, Leeds Metropolitan Liberal 15 Queen Square, Leeds Association Norman Jones 38 Park Square Leeds Labour Party Councillor G.E. Mudie 4 Temple Close, Leeds East Leeds C.L.F. (Leeds City Councillor) J. Townsend Civic Hall Leeds Leeds City Council H. Thornton Merrion Centre Leeds Leeds City Council D.B. Matthews 2 Stone Villas, Leeds 6 City of Leeds Labour Party (County Councillor) R. Lund 32 North Lane Oulton Rothwell (Leeds City Councillor) W.H. Thorns Norwood Broadgate Horsforth Miss P. Coombes 2 Mitford Road. Leeds 12 Observer D.R, Pitts Yorkshire Evening Post Alfred Tallant 5 Park Crescent, Leeds 8 Observer 'J. Kemp 113 Broadway, Horsforth Observer Alastair Laurence Home Farm Square, Self - and Horsforth Faraby Hall, Otley Mrs. Elsie Hutchinson 9 Marshall Street Yeadon Aireborough Labour Party Dick Gibbon 33 East View, Yeadon Yeadon Campaign K. Hall 39 Old Road Churwell Churwell M.J. Rothwell 14 Victoria Walk, Horsforth Horsforth Community Association N. Wilby 5 Crow Trees Park, Rawdon Aireborough Civic Society P.G.J. White 205 Roundhay Road, Leeds 8 North East Leeds Conservative Association R. Hughes-Rowlands 20 Parkside, Horsforth Conservative Party John Gunnell 145 Ashboume Croft, Hun4et Labour Party (County Councillor) Leeds 10 J.S. Brodwell 30 Jackson Drive, Horsforth Horsforth E. Barlow 15 Victoria Crescent, Horsforth Labour Party Horsforth N. Cooper 76 Selby Road Garforth Barkston Ash Labour Party F. Stubley 27 Allerton Grange Rise Wortley (Leeds City Councillor) N. Tynans Norwood, Broadgate Lane, Horsforth Horsforth . 2 -

SAME ADRESS REPRESENTING

M.D. Crossfield 30 Broadgate Walk Councillor - Horsforth (Leeds City Councillor) Horsforth W.H. Goodwill Leeds South Labour Party Councillor E.A. Nash Hark To Rover Cottage Kirkstall Labour Party (Leeds City Councillor) 92 Morris Lane Leeds LS5 3EN Councillor F. Flatters Swillington Parish Council (Leeds City Councillor) Harry Swain 12 Wynford Terrace, Leeds Leeds District Labour Party R.H. Howe 80 Southway, Horsforth . Pudsey Constituency Liberal Association T.R. Battersby Kirkstall Chris. Greenfield 12 Brentwood Terrace West Yorkshire County (County Councillor) Arraley Council Liberal Group A. Sangster 38 Park Square, Leeds Observer John M. Sully 5 Primley Park Road Leeds Observer (County Councillor) Miss M. Kemp 113 Broadway Horsforth Observer E.D. Walley 39 Simpson Grove Leeds 12 Armley Society B. Morris "Shalom" Crossland Road Independent Candidate - Churwell Morley J. Mann Stanningley Labour Party (Leeds City Councillor) Bob Spray 65 Town Street Armley Armley Defence Committee Leeds J.A. Wootton 29 Newlaithes Road Horsforth Conservative Horsforth Association G. Woledge Greenbank John Street Aireborough Conservative Rawdon Association Councillor Denise 17 .Valley Road B ram ley Bramley Atkinson (Leeds City Leeds David R. Maude 32 Briarlea Close Yeadon Aireborough Liberal Association E. Link 13 Barden Grove, Leeds Annley Society K. Houghton 90 Boroughgate, Otley Ripon Conservatives S A. Ott 90 Boroughgate1, Otley Ripon Conservatives G. Francis 12 North Avenue Otley Leeds City Council (Leeds City Councillor) C. Davis 27 Westlea Crescent Yeadon S. Sharp Yorkshire Post G.D. Edmondson 40 Victoria Mount, Horsforth Horsforth Liberal Association A. Nielsen 264 Low Lane Horsforth Horsforth Conservative Association - 3 -

NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING

Councillor G. Moakes 12 Astley Lane Swillington 28 Ward (Leeds City Councillor) Leeds LS26 8UD Swillington/Kippax/ Allerton Bywater etc. J.S, Dixon 31 The Towers Armley Ward Labour Party K. Houghton 90 Boroughgate, Otley Ripon Conservatives D; Chadwick 10 Landseer View, Leeds Bramley Labour Party LS13 2RA Councillor 29 The Towers, Leeds 12 Leeds City Council M.J. Meadowcroft Liberal Party (Leeds City Councillor) Bill Merritt 2 Carlton Gate, Leeds LS7 Leeds Labour Party (County Councillor and Leeds City Councillor) Doreen Wootton 29 Newlaithes Road, Horsforth Conservative Horsforth Association Rev. A.C. Betts Vicar, All Saints Church SCHEDTI1E 2

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT OF THE CITY OP LEEDS: NAMES OF PROPOSED WARDS AKB NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS NAME OF WARD NO. OF COUNCILLORS Aireborough 3 Armley 3 Barwick and Kippax 3 Beeston 3 Bramley 3 Burmantoft8 3 Chapel Allerton 3 City and Holbeck 3 Cookrldge 3 Garforth and Swillington 3 Halton 3 Harehills 3 Headingley 3 Horeforth 3 Hunslet 3 Kirkstall 3 Middleton 3 Moortown 3 Morley South 3 Morley North 3 North 3 Otley and Wharfedale 3 Pudsey South 3 Pudsey North 3 Richmond Hill 3 Roundhay 3 Rothwell 3 Seacroft 3 University 3 Weetwood 3 Wetherby 3 Whinmoor 3 Wortley 3

The proposed ward boundaries are shown on a map which can be inspected at the Council*s offices. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards as defined on the map is attached at Schedule 3. SCHEDULE 3

CITY OF LEEDS - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WARD BOUNDARIES

Note: Where the boundary is described as following a road, railway, river, canal or similar feature it should be deemed to follow the centre line of the feature unless otherwise stated.

AIREBOROUGH WARD Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the City meets the southern boundary of Otley CP, thence generally eastwards along said CP boundary to the western boundary of Carlton CP, thence generally south- wards along said boundary and eastwards along the southern boundary of said CP to Cemetery Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Warren House Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to a point opposite the eastern boundary of parcel no ?2?8 as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SE 20-21^1 Edition of 1962, thence southwestwards to and along.said boundary and the eastern boundary of parcel no 6169 to the northeastern boundary of the area of land known as Tarnfield, thence southeastwards along said north- i eastern boundary to and southwestwards along the southeastern boundary of said area of land to its southernmost point, thence due south from said point to Dam Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to High Street, thence northwestwards along said street to Windmill Lane, thence south- westwards and southeastwards along said lane to Green Lane, thence eastwards along said lane to Harrogate Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Micklefield Lane, thence southwards and westwards along said lane and in prolongation thereof to the western boundary of the

City, thence generally northwestwards and eastwards along said city boundary to the point of-commencement.

HORSFORTH WARD Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the City meets the southern boundary of Aireborough Ward, thence eastwards along said ward boundary to Micklefield Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Leeds Road, thence southeastwards along said road to. Well Lane, thence a northeastwards along said lane to Town Street, thence westwards along said street to Larkfield Road, thence northwestwards along said road to a point opposite the southeastern boundary of the Cricket Ground, thence north- eastwards to and along said boundary to the footpath that forms the north- eastern boundary of said cricket ground, thence southeastwards along said footpath to the access way from Billing View to Billing Hill, thence northeastwards along said access way to a point opposite the northern boundary of parcel no 73^8 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SE 2139 Publication of 1964, thence southeastwards to and along said northern boundary to and southwards along the eastern boundary of said parcel to the northern boundary of parcel no 8040, thence southeastwards along said northern boundary to and southwards along the eastern boundary of said parcel to the western boundary of Billing Farm, thence eastwards and northwards along said boundary, and southeastwards and southwestwards along the northern and eastern boundaries of said farm to the rear boundary of No k Layton Crescent, thence eastwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos 5 and 6 Layton Crescent to the eastern boundary of the last mentioned property, thence southwards along said eastern boundary to the northern boundary of Brendene, thence eastwards along said northern boundary to the northeastern corner of said property, thence eastwards in a straight line from said corner to the northwestern corner of the property known as Field House, thence eastwards along the northern boundary of said property and the property known as Oakworth, crossing the footpath east of said property to and southeastwards along the northern boundaries of the properties known as Thornfield, Beechlea, Grange Garth, The Shieling and Fairhaven to the eastern boundary of parcel no 22¥f as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SE 2239 Publication of 1964, thence northwards and eastwards along said eastern boundary and continuing east- wards along the northern boundary of the property known as Dalecroft to the eastern boundary of said property, thence southwards along said boundary to the northern end of Billing Drive, thence eastwards along the . 3 northern end of said road and the northern boundary of the property known as Newstead to the eastern boundary of said property, thence southwards along said eastern boundary and the eastern boundary of the property known as Robin Hill to the northern boundary of the property known as Camelot, thence eastwards along said boundary and eastwards, southwards and east-

wards along the northern boundary of the property known as Eastbrook House, to Gill Beck, thence northwards and northeastwards along said beck to the point where it crosses the western boundary of parcel no 7^71i thence northwards along said western boundary and eastwards along the northern boundary of said parcel crossing Bayton Lane in a straight line to the northern boundary of parcel no 78?6, thence northeastwards along said northern boundary and the northern boundaries of parcels nos 7980, 8583, 9790 and 9790, 1393, 3300 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (B) SE 2339 Publication of 197^ and 3300, 4610 and 6014 as shown on OS 1:3^00 Microfilm (A) SE 23*K) Publication of 1964 and in prolongation thereof to Scotland Lane, thence northwards along said lane to Scotland Beck, thence eastwards along said beck to Moseley Beck, thence southwards along said i beck, southeastwards and southwestwards along Oil Mill Beck, and south- westwards along Cow Beck to the River Aire, thence westwards and south- wards along said river to the Leeds to Shipley Railway, thence northwest- wards along said railway to the road known as Broadway, thence southwest- wards along said road to the River Aire, thence generally northwestwards and southwestwards along said river to the western boundary of the City, thence northeastwards along said city boundary to the point of commence- ment.

COOKRID3E WARD Commencing at a point where the northern boundary of Horsforth Ward (Scotland Beck) meets Moseley Beck, thence northwards along said Moseley Beck to Horsforth Bridge, thence eastwards along said bridge to the Leeds to Harrowgate railway thance northwestwards along said railway to Moseley if Beck, thence northwards along said beck to the eastern boundary of Carlton CP, thence northwards along said CP boundary to the southern boundary of Bramhope CP, thence generally eastwards along said CP boundary and continuing eastwards along Marsh Beck to Otley Road, thence southeast- wards along said road to a point opposite the northwestern boundary of Parkway Hotel, thence northeastwards to and along said boundary to the northeastern boundary of said hotel, thence southeastwards along said boundary to the footpath that leads to Arthington Road, thence northeast- wards along said footpath to the unnamed stream that flows into Adel Dam, thence southeastwards along said stream to Adel Dam, thence southwards across said dam to Adel Beck, thence southeastwards and southwestwards along said beck to Ring Road Meanwood, thence westwards along said ring road, Ring Road Adel and Ring Road Weetwood to Weetwood Lane, thence northwards along said lane to Adel Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the southern boundary of No 121 Adel Lane, thence southwestwards to and along said boundary to its southernmost point, thence due south from said point to the unnamed stream that forms the northern boundary of Bodington Hall (Leeds University), thence southwest- wards and northwestwards along said stream to Otley Road, thence south- wards along said road to a point opposite the southern boundary of Lawns Wood Cemetery, thence northwestwards to and northwestwards and southwest- wards along said boundary to New Adel Lane, thence southwards along said lane to Otley Old Road, thence northwestwards along said road to Hospital Lane, thence southwestwards and southwards along said lane to a point opposite the southern boundary of No 102 Iveson Drive, thence eastwards to and along said southern boundary to and southwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 10^-118 Iveson Drive to the footpath that leads from Iveson Drive, north of Woodside Quarry to Clayton Wood Cottage, thence southwestwards along said footpath to and continuing southwestwards along the unnamed road to Old Mill Beck, being the eastern boundary of Horsforth Ward, thence northwestwards and northwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement. 5

WEETWOOD WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Horsforth Ward meets the southern boundary of Cookridge Ward, thence northeastwards and generally southeastwards along said southern boundary to Smithy Mills Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to and southeastwards along Parkside Road and Stainbeck Lane to KG Reference SE 29^783726^, thence southwestwards in a straight line from said point to the southeastern corner of No 168 Stainbeck Road, thence southwestwards along the rear boundary of said property, the rear boundaries of Nos 166-164 Stainbeck Road crossing Beckhill Approach and continuing southwestwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 160-58 Stainbeck Road and in prolongation thereof to Potternewton Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to Stainbeck Road, thence southwestwards along said road and westwards along Grove Lane to Shaw Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane and southwestwards and westwards along St Anne's Road to the footpath that leads from said road to Foxcroft Mount, thence westwards along said footpath to a point opposite the rear boundary of No 3^ Foxcroft Mount, thence northwestwards to and along said rear boundary and the rear boundary of No 36 Foxcroft Mount to the southern boundary of Beckett Park County Primary School, thence northeastwards along said boundary to and northwards along the eastern boundary of said school to the southern boundary of Beckett Park, thence southwestwards and northwestwards along said boundary and the southwestern boundary of said park, northwestwards along the southwestern boundary of Queen's Wood, northwards along the western boundary of the Teachers Training College and Carnegie College Playing Fields and north- westwards along the southwestern boundary of West Park County Secondary School Playing Fields to Spen Lane, thence northeastwards, along said lane to the road known as Butcher Hill, thence generally westwards along said road to the eastern boundary of Horsforth Ward, thence northeast- wards and northwestwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement. 6

HOORTOWN WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Weetwood Ward meets the southern boundary of Cookridge Ward, thence eastwards along said southern boundary and continuing eastwards along Ring Road Meanwopd and northeastwards and eastwards along Ring Road Moortown to a point due north of the eastern boundary of No 212 West.Park Drive (West), thence due south to and southwards along said eastern boundary to West Park

Drive (West), thence westwards along said drive to the road known as

Kingswood Gardens, thence southwards along said road to Street Lane, thence westwards along said lane to Talbot Road, thence southwards along said road to Lidgett Park Road, thence southeastwards along said road to

Lidgett Place, thence southwards along said place to the road known as

The Drive, thence westwards along said road to Lidgett Lane, thence south- wards along said lane to Brackenwood Drive, thence westwards and south- westwards along said drive to a point being the prolongation northeast- wards of the northwestern boundary of Bracken Hills Wood, thence south- westwards along said prolongation and boundary and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Bracken Hills Wood to the easternmost point of the property known as Hill Side, thence due south from said point to

Gledhow Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to Gledhow Valley

Road, thence northwestwards along said road to Harrogate Road, thence northwestwards along said road to Stainbeck Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Scott Hall Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Stainbeck Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to and continuing northwestwards along the eastern boundary of Weetwood Ward to the point of commencement.

CHAPEL ALLERTON WARD

Commencing at a point where the southeastern boundary.of Weetwood Ward meets the southern boundary of Moortown Ward, thence southeastwards, north- eastwards and southeastwards along said southern boundary and continuing 7 ' ' eoutheastwards along Gledhow Valley Road to the road known as Roundhay Grove, thence southwestwards along said road to Harehills Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to Harehills Avenue, thence westwards along said avenue to Spencer Place, thence southwards along said place to Roundhay Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Barrack Road, thence westwards along said road and southwestwards along Barrack Street to Street North, thence northwestwards along said street to Sackville Street thence southwestwards along said street to Sheepscar Beck, thence northwestwards along said beck to the southeastern boundary of Buslingthorpe Mills, thence southwestward along said boundary and northwestward along the southwestern boundary to Sheepscar Beck thence northwestward along said beck and Meanwood Beck to the footpath that leads from Meanwood Road to Sugar Well Mount, thence northeastwards along- said footpath to its northern end, at the junction with Sugar Well Mount, thence in a straight line to the southeastern corner of No 39 Sugar Well Mount, thence northeastwards along the eastern boundary of said property to the rear boundary of said property, thence northwestwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos 37-3 Sugar Well Mount, crossing the access road leading to Model Farm and continuing north- eastwards, northwestwards and northwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 18-86 Farm Hill, to the rear boundary of No 355 Potternewton Lane, thence southeastwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos 353 and 351 Potternewton Lane to and northeastwards along the southeastern boundary of the last mentioned property to Potternewton Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to the southeastern boundary of Weetwood Ward, thence northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement.

KIRKSTALL WARD Commencing at a point where the southeastern boundary of Horsforth Ward meets the southwestern boundary of Weetwood Ward, thence southeastwards 8 along said southwestern boundary and eastwards along the southern boundary of Weetwood Ward to the track that runs southwards through Batcliffe

Wood, thence southwestwards and southwards along said track to Queenswood

Drive, thence southwards along said drive to the Leeds to Harrogate

Railway, thence southeastwards along said railway to the footbridge containing the footpath that leads from Burley Recreation Ground to

Cardigan Road, thence eastwards along said footpath to Cardigan Road, thence southwards along said road to Alexandra Road, thence southeast- wards along said road to Hyde Park Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Burley Road, thence northwestwards along said road to a point opposite the footpath that leads from Burley Road to Kirkstall Road, west of the Yorkshire Television Studios, thence southwestwards to and along said footpath to Kirkstall Road, thence northwestwards along said road to a point opposite the western boundary of the Screw Works, thence south- westwards to and along said western boundary to the River Aire, thence northwestwards along said river to the southeastern boundary of Horsforth

Ward, thence northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commence- ment .

ARMLEY WARD

Commencing at a point where Bridge Road crosses the River Aire, being the southwestern boundary of Kirkstall Ward, thence southeastwards along said ward boundary to the Leeds to Harrogate Railway, thence southeast-. . wards along said railway to Arraley Road, thence southwestwards and north- westwards along said road to the road known as Gloucester Terrace, thence southwards along said road to a point opposite the northeastern corner of

HM Prison, thence westwards to said point, thence southeastwards and southwestwards along the eastern and southern boundaries of said prison to Hall Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the eastern boundary of New Wortley Cemetery, thence southwestwards to and along said boundary to the footpath that is situated to the north of 9 Third Avenue, Nos Vf-5*f and No 66 Third Avenue, thence southeastwards along said footpath to the footpath that is situated to the east of Nos

66-10 Third Avenue, thence southwestwards along said footpath to Tong

Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the road known as Whingate, thence northwestwards along said road to the Leeds to Bradford Railway, thence westwards and northwestwards along said railway to Stanningley By- pass, thence southwestwards and northwestwards along said By-pass to.

Swinnow Road, thence northeastwards along said road to Stanningley Road, thence eastwards along said road to Lower Town Street, thence northwest- wards along said street to the unnamed road servicing Bramley Centre to the path running south of No 2 Bramley Centre, thence southeastward, northeastward, southeastward and northeastward along said path to a road known as Snowdon Vale thence northeastward along said road known as Out

Gang, thence northeastwards along said road and Out Gang Lane to Broad Lane, thence northeastwards along said lane to Wyther Lane* thence north- wards along said lane to Bridge Road, thence northeastwards along said road to the point of commencement.

BRAMLEY WARD Commencing at a point where the southwestern boundary of.Kirkstall Ward meets the northwestern boundary of Armley Ward, thence southwestwards along said northwestern boundary to Stanningley By-pass, thence north- westwards and southwestwards along said By-pass to Swinnow Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to the Leeds to Bradford Railway, thence southwestwards along said railway to Grangefield Road, thence northwest- wards along said road to Town Street, thence southwestwards along said street to a point opposite the eastern boundary of Spring Valley Mills, thence northwestwards to and northwestwards and northeastwards along said boundary to Foundry Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the northwestern boundary of Stanningley Works thence northeastwards to and along said boundary to the footpath that leads to 10 the unnamed road that leads from the Works to the road known as Newlands, thence northwestwards along said footpath to and northeastwards along said unnamed road to the footpath that leads to Broom Mills, thence northwards along said footpath to a point opposite the northeastern boundary of

Broom Mills, thence northwestwards to and along said northeastern boundary and the northern boundary of said mills to the southeastern boundary of

Bank Bottom Mills, thence northeastwards along said boundary and in prolongation thereof to Coal Hill Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to a point opposite the southeastern boundary of Farsley Baptist

Burial Ground, thence northeastwards to and along said boundary and continuing northeastwards along the southeastern boundary of parcel no

3968 as shown on OS 1:2500'plan SE 22-2335 Edition of 196?, to and north- westwards along the eastern boundary of said parcel to the southern boundary of parcel no 4671, thence northeastwards along said boundary and the southern boundary of parcel no 5273 to the southwestern boundary of parcel no 6??1» thence northwestwards along said boundary and northeast- wards along the northwestern boundary of said parcel to and continuing northeastwards, southeastwards and northeastwards along the northwestern boundary of Rodley Recreation Ground to Town Street, thence northwest- wards along said street to Moss Bridge Road, thence northeastwards along said road crossing Moss Bridge to the unnamed road running adjacent to. the

Leeds and Liverpool Canal, thence northwestwards along said unnamed road to the unnamed road that leads to the River Aire, northeast of

Mills, thence northeastwards along said unnamed road to the River Aire, thence northwards and westwards along said river to the road known as

Broadway, being the southern boundary of Horsforth Ward, thence generally eastwards along said boundary and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Kirkstall Ward to the point of commencement. 11

PUESEY NORTH WARD '

Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the City meets the

southern boundary of Horsforth Ward, thence northeastwards and southeast-

wards along said ward boundary to and generally southwards along the

western and southwestern boundaries of Bramley Ward to Stanningley By-

pass, thence southwestwards along said By-pass to Richardshaw Lane, thence i southwards along said lane to Cemetery Road, thence westwards along said

road and northwestwards along Owlcotes Road to Waterloo Road, thence

southwards along said road to a point being the prolongation northeast-

wards of the northern boundary of No 135 Waterloo Road and the northern boundary of the parcel of land situated to the rear of Nos 135-127

Waterloo Road, thence southwestwards along said prolongation, the northern boundary of said property and the northern boundary of.said parcel and in prolongation thereof to the Leeds to Bradford Railway,

thence southwestwards along said railway to the western boundary of the

City, thence northwards along said city boundary to the point of

commencement.

PUB5EY SOUTH WARD

Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the City meets the southern boundary of Pudsey North Ward, thence northeastwards along

said ward boundary, northeastwards and south-eastwards along the southern boundary of Bramley Ward and southeastwards along the southern boundary

of Armley Ward to Ring Road Bramley, thence southeastwards along said road crossing the roundabout and continuing southeastwards along Ring

Road Faraley to Farnley Beck, thence southwestwards along said beck to and southwards along Pudsey Beck to the western boundary of the City, thence westwards and northwards along said city boundary to the point of commencement. WORTLEY WARD

Commencing at a point where Cock Beck meets the western boundary of the

City, thence northeastwards and northwards along said city boundary to and northwards, northeastwards and northwestwards along the eastern boundary of Pudsey South Ward to the southern boundary of Armley Ward, thence southeastwards along said ward boundary to the Leeds to Bradford

Railway, thence southeastwards along said railway to Amberley Road, thence southeastwards along said road and Highfield Avenue to the unnamed road that forms the southern boundary of No 101 Highfield

Avenue, thence northeastwards along said road to the footpath that leads to Whitehall Road, thence southeastwards along said footpath to the Leeds to Morley Railway, thence southwestwards and southeastwards along said railway to Farnley Wood Beck, thence northwestwards and westwards along said beck to where it issues, thence westwards in a straight line to. the northeastern corner of Moorhead Mill, thence westwards along the northern boundary of said mill to and southwards along the western boundary of said mill to the northern boundary of No 1 Moor Head, thence westwards along said northern boundary to Lane, thence northwards along said lane to a point opposite the southern boundary of parcel no.7100 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (B) SE 2329, Date of Publication 1971, thence westwards to and along said boundary, the northern boundary of the area of land containing the reservoir situated to the east of Valley

Mills, the northern boundary of said mills, the northern boundary of the reservoir situated to the north of Valley Mills and in prolongation thereof to Whitehall Road, thence northeastwards along said road to a point opposite the northeastern boundary of No 2 Whitehall Road, thence northwestwards to and along said boundary and the northern boundary of parcel no 3702 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SE 2330, Date of

Publication 1956* to the northeastern boundary of parcel no 2502, thence northwestwards along said boundary to and southwestwards along the north- western boundary of said parcel to Cock'Beck, thence generally northwest- 13 wards along said beck to the western boundary of the City, thence generally northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement.

CITY AND HOLBECK WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Armley Ward meets the southwestern boundary of Kirkstall Ward, thence southeastwards along said southwestern boundary to the southeastern boundary of Kirkstall Ward, thence northeastwards along said boundary to Kirkstall Road, thence southeastwards along said road and Wellington Street to the Inner Ring Road, thence northeastwards and southeastwards along said road and continuing southeastwards along New York Road to Harsh Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to the eastern carriageway of the round- about that contains East Street, thence southwards along said carriageway to. and westwards along East Street to Crown Point Road, thence south- westwards along said road to the River Aire, thence southeastwards along said river to South Accommodation Road,.thence southwestwards and west- wards along said road to Hunslet Road, thence southeastwards along said road to the unnamed dual carriageway that leads to the , thence southwestwards along said dual carriageway to the M1 Motorway, thence southwards along said motorway to Tunstall Road, thence westwards to and along said road to Dewsbury Road, thence southwards along said road to Stratford Street, thence westwards and southwestwards along said street to Tempest Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Wood- view Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the northeastern boundary of Cross Flatts Park, thence northwestwards along said boundary to Beeston Road, thence southwestwards along said road and Town Street to Crow Nest Lane, thence westwards along said lane to a point Opposite the footpath that leads from said lane to , thence southwest- wards to and along said footpath to Elland Road, thence northwestwards along said road to and continuing northwestwards along Ring Road Beeston to the eastern boundary of Wortley Ward, thence northeastwards and north- westwards along said ward boundary to the southern boundary of Armley Ward, thence eastwards along said ward boundary to and northwards along the eastern boundary of said ward to the point of commencement.

HEADINGLY WARD

Commencing at a point where the northeastern boundary of Kirkstall Ward meets the southern boundary of Weetwood Ward, thence northeastwards along said southern boundary to and continuing southeastwards and south- westwards along the western boundary of Chapel Allerton Ward and continuing southwestwards along the footpath to Meanwood Road, thence southeastwards along said road to a point opposite the western boundary of No Vf1 Meanwood Road, thence southwestwards to and along said boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos 4-14 Ridge Grove to the south- western corner of the last mentioned property, thence due southwest from .said point to the southern boundary of the wooded area known as Wood- house Ridge, thence westwards, along said boundary to the northwestern corner of the Bedford Fields Middle School, thence southwards along the western boundary of said school to the southern boundary of Nos 1-6 Ridge Mount Terrace, thence westwards along said boundary to and south- wards and westwards along the eastern and southern boundary of No 59 Cliff Road to Cliff Road, thence southwards along said road to Woodhouse Street, thence southwestwards along said street and Hyde Park Road to the northeastern boundary of Kirkstall Ward, thence northwestwards and north- eastwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement.

UNIVERSITY WARD

Commencing at a point where the southeastern boundary of Kirkstall Ward meets the eastern boundary of Headingley Ward, thence northeastwards along said eastern boundary to the southwestern boundary of Chapel

Allerton Ward, thence southwestwards along said ward boundary to and eastwards along the southern boundary of ..said ward to and continuing - 15 northeastwards along Roundhay Road to the road known as Elford Grove,

thence eastwards along said road to Harehills Road, thence southwards

along said road to Stanley Road, thence southeastwards along said road to

Stoney Rock Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane and Nippet Lane

to Burmantofts Street, thence southwestwards along said street to the

northern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward, thence generally northwest-

wards along said ward boundary to the southeastern boundary of Kirkstall

'Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to the point of

commencement.

HAREHILLS WARD

Commencing at a point where the northern boundary of University Ward

meets the eastern boundary of Chapel Allerton Ward, thence northwards and

northeastwards along said eastern boundary to Gledhow Valley Road, thence

southeastwards along said road to Roundhay Road, thence southwestwards

along said road to Easterley Road, thence southeastwards and northeast-

wards along said road to Wyke Beck, thence southeastwards. and southwards

along said beck to the footpath that leads from west of Parkway Towers to

Oakwood Lane via a track, thence westwards along said footpath and track

to Oakwood Lane, thence northwards along said lane to the road known as

Amberton Approach, thence southwestwards along said road to Oak Tree

Drive, thence southwestwards along said drive, Foundry Approach and

Compton Road to the northern boundary of University Ward, thence generally northwestward along said ward boundary to the point of commencement.

SEACROFT WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Harehills Ward meets

Easterly Road, thence northeastwards along said road to Wetherby Road,

thence northeastwards along said road to the roundabout junction with Ring

Road (Seacroft), thence southeastwards along said road and southwards along Ring Road (Cross Gates) to Cross Gates Road, thence westwards along 16 said road to and northwestwards in a straight line crossing the round- about junction with Foundry Lane and York Road to and continuing north- westwards along Foundry Lane to and northwestwards along Foundry Mill Drive to the roundabout junction with the road known as South Parkway Approach, thence southwestwards to and along said road to Wyke Beck, thence northwards along said beck to and. continuing northwards and northwestwards along the eastern boundary of Harehills Ward to the point of commencement.

BUKMANTOFTS WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of University Ward meets the southern boundary of Harehills Ward, thence northeastwards and east- wards along said southern boundary to the western boundary of Seacroft

Ward, thence southwards along said ward boundary to and southeastwards and eastwards along the southern boundary of said ward to Station Road, thence southwards along said road to the Leeds-York railway line, thence southwestwards along said railway to the footbridge situated southeast of

Nos 9 and 11,10 and 12 Rye Place, thence southwestwards in a straight line from said footbridge to the northernmost point of No 113 Selby Road, thence southwestwards along the northwestern boundary of said property to Selby Road, thence northwestwards along said road to York Road, thence westwards, southwestwards and westwards along said road to the eastern boundary of University Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement.

RICHMOND HILL WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward meets the southern boundary of Burmantofts Ward, thence eastwards, north- eastwards and southeastwards along said southern boundary and continuing southeast wards along Selby Road and Teraplenewsam Road to the road known as Templenewsam View, thence southwestwards along said road and Halton 17 Moor Road to the unnamed road that leads from Cartmell Drive to Skelton

Moor House, thence southwards along said unnamed road and continuing southwards through the grounds of Skelton Moor House and along the unnamed road to Pontefract Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to

Knowsthorpe Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to Wye Beck, thence southwards along said beck to the Main Effluent Channel, thence southeastwards along said channel to the River Aire, thence southwest- wards and northwestwards along said river to and continuing northwestwards and northeastwards along the eastern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward to the point of commencement.

HUNSLET WARD

Commencing, at a point where the eastern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward meets the southwestern boundary of Richmond Hill Ward, thence southeast- wards along said southwestern boundary to a point due northeast of the southeastern corner of the Yorkshire Copper Works, thence due southwest- wards to said corner and southwestwards along the southeastern boundary of said works to NG Reference SE 3338030079 on the Leeds-Pontefract. . railway line, thence southwestwards in a straight line from said point to NG Reference SE 3330229975 being a point in Pontefract Road on Cinder

Oven Bridge, thence southwestwards from said point to the footpath that leads to the track west of St George's Crescent, thence southwestwards and southeastwards along said footpath to said track, thence southwest- wards along said track to Wood Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to Wakefield Road, thence northwestwards along said road to a point opposite the footpath that leads from Wakefield Road to Orion Walk, thence westwards to and along said footpath to the M1 Motorway, thence south- wards along said motorway to a point due east of the southeastern corner of No 12 Raylands Close, thence due westwards to said corner, thence northwestwards along the northeastern boundary of said property, the northeastern boundary of No 11 Raylands .Close the eastern boundary of 18 No 8 Raylands Garth, the rear boundaries of Nos 10 and 9 Raylands Garth and the northeastern boundary of No 23^ Ring Road Middleton to the northern most point of said property, thence northwestwards in a straight line from said point to the junction of Broom Nook and the more northern road known as Ring Road Middleton, thence southwestwards along said road crossing Belle Isle Road to Sharp Lane, thence northwards along said lane and Town Street to Newhall Road, thence northwestwards, northeastwards and northwards along said road to the unnamed road that leads to Old Run Road, thence northwards and northwestwards along said unnamed road to the unnamed road that leads to Middleton Woood, thence southwestwards along said unnamed road to , thence northwestwards and north- wards along said railway to the M1 Motorway, thence northwards along said motorway to and continuing northwards and northeastwards along the eastern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward to the point of commencement.

BEESTON WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Wortley Ward meets the

southwestern boundary of City and Holbeck Ward, thence southeastwards

along said southwestern boundary to the southern boundary of said ward,

thence generally northeastwards along said ward boundary to the western

boundary of Hunslet Ward, thence southwards along said ward boundary to

NG Reference SE 30^6300^6, thence due westwards from said point to the

northwestern boundary of the Recreation Ground, thence southwestwards

along said boundary and the northern boundary of Park Wood to and south-

westwards along the northwestern boundary of.said wood to the footpath

that leads to the unnamed road that forms the southern boundary of Park-

side County Secondary School, thence westwards along said footpath and

unnamed road to Gipsy Lane, thence southwards along said lane to a point

opposite the footpath that leads to the Leeds-Wakefield railway line, thence westwards along said footpath and continuing westwards along the unnamed road to the Leeds-Wakefield railway line, thence northwards along 19

said railway to Dewsbury Road, thence southwestwards along said road to

the unnamed road south of No 556 Dewsbury Road and No 75 Millshaw Road

thence westwards along said unnamed road to Millshaw Road, thence north-

westwards along said road to and continuing northwestwards along Ring

Road Beeston, to the road known as Millshaw, thence westwards and south-

westwards along said road to Elland Road, thence southwestwards along

said road to the Leeds-Morley railway line, thence northwestwards along

said railway to and continuing northwestwards and northeastwards along

the eastern boundary of Wortley Ward to the point of commencement.

MORLEY NORTH WARD

Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the City meets the

southern boundary of Wortley Ward, thence eastwards along said ward

boundary to and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Beeston

Ward to Dewsbury Road, thence southwards along said road to a point

opposite the footpath that runs adjacent to and south of Cotton Mill

Beck, thence westwards to and along said footpath to the footpath that

crosses Cotton Mill Beck, thence northwestwards along said footpath to

the Leeds-Morley railway line, thence southwestwards along said railway

to Valley Road, thence northwestwards and northeastwards along said road

to Station Road, thence westwards along said road to Queen Street, thence

southwestwards and southeastwards along said street to the road known as

Queensway, thence southwestwards along said road to Corporation Street,

thence southeastwards along said street to Fountain Street, thence south-

westwards along said street to Bruntcliffe Road, thence westwards along

said road .to Scotchman Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane to

the southern boundary of the City, thence northwestwards along said

southern boundary to and northeastwards along the western boundary of the

City to the point of commencement. 20

MORLEY SOUTH WARD

Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of the City meets the southeastern boundary of Morley North Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to Dewsbury Road, thence southeastwards along said road to West Wood Road, thence northeastwards and eastwards along said road to the Leeds-Wakefield railway line, thence southeastwards along said railway line to the southern boundary of the City, thence south- westwards and northwestwards along said city boundary to the point of commencement.

MIDDLETON WARD

Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of the City meets the northeastern boundary of Morley South Ward, thence northwestwards along said ward boundary and Morley North Ward to the southern boundary of Beeston Ward, thence generally northeastwards along said southern, boundary to the western boundary of Hunslet Ward, thence southeastwards along said western boundary to.and northeastwards, northwards and south- eastwards along the southern boundary of Hunslet Ward to a point in Wood

Lane opposite the western boundary of St George's Hospital (Geriatric), thence southwestwards to and along said western boundary to its western- most point, thence due south from said point to Haigh Beck, thence south- eastwards along said beck to the footpath leading from Low Shops Lane to

Wakefield Road, thence southwestwards along said footpath to NG reference

SE 3286628375 thence southwards in a straight line from said point to

NG reference SE 3283327562 being a point on Leadwell Lane, thence south- eastwards in a straight line from said point to NG reference SE 3302526755 being a point on the Dismantled Railway, thence southeastwards along said dismantled railway to a point opposite the southeastern corner of the

Allotment Gardens situated on the southwestern side of Ouzlewell Green, thence due south from said point to the , thence eastwards along said motorway to Lee Moor Beck, thence southwestwards and southeast- 21 wards.along said beck to the southern boundary of the City, thence west- wards and northwestwards along said city boundary to the point of commencement.

ROTHWELL WARD

Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of the City meets the / eastern boundary of Middleton Ward, thence northwestwards and northwards along said ward.boundary to and northeastwards along the eastern boundary of Hunslet Ward to the southern boundary of Richmond Hill Ward, thence southeastwards and northeastwards along said southern boundary and continuing generally southeastwards along the River Aire to the south- western boundary of Swillington CP, thence southeastwards along said CP boundary to Oulton Beck, thence westwards along said beck to Fleet Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to Methley Lane, thence southeast- wards along said lane to a point opposite the southern boundary of parcel no V523 as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SE 38-392? Edition of 1960, thence westwards to and along eaid boundary to the western boundary of parcel no 5?13i thence southeastwards along said boundary and the western boundary of parcel no 7100 as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SE 38-3926 Edition of 1960 to Park Lane, thence southwestwards along said lane and Newmarket Lane to the M62 motorway, thence southeastwards along said motorway to the southern boundary of the City, thence westwards along said city boundary to the point of commencement.

ROUNIHAY WARD Commencing at a point where the northeastern boundary of Chapel Allerton Ward meets the eastern boundary of Moortown Ward, thence generally north- wards along said eastern boundary to and westwards along the northern boundary of said ward to a point opposite the western boundary of No 503 Ring Road (Moortown), thence northwestwards to and along said western boundary, the western end of the access road north of said property, the 22

western boundary of the plot of land north of said access road, the western end of the access road south of No 1 Valley Terrace, the western boundary of said property and the western boundary of Highthorne Drive to Shadwell Lane, thence northeastwards along said Lane to the southern boundary of Harewood CP, thence eastwards along said CP boundary and the southwestern boundary of Scarcroft CP to the western boundary of Thorner CP, thence eastwards and southwestwards along said CP boundary to a point opposite- the track that leads via a footpath to Red Hall Nurseries, thence south- wards to and along said track to a point opposite the southern boundary of parcel no 5100 as shown on OS 1:2500 plan SE 3^-3538 Edition of 1965, thence westwards to and along said southern boundary and westwards and southwestwards along the northern and northwestern boundaries of parcel no kk6k to Ring Road (Shadwell), thence southeast wards along said road to the northwestern boundary of Seacroft Ward, thence southwestwards along said ward boundary to and southwestwards, northeastwards and northwest- wards along Harehills Ward and continuing northwestwards along the north-, eastern boundary of Chapel Allerton Ward to the point of commencement.

HALTON WARD The Parish of Austhorpe and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the northern boundary of Rothwell Ward meets the eastern boundary of Richmond Hill Ward, thence generally northwards along said eastern boundary to the southeastern boundary of Burmantofts Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to and northwards along the eastern boundary of said ward and the eastern boundary of Seacroft Ward to Barwick Road, thence eastwards and northeastwards along said road and northeastwards along Leeds Road to the southwestern boundary of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes CP, thence eastwards and southwards along said CP boundary to the northern boundary of Austhorpe CP, thence southwards and westwards along said CP boundary to the western boundary of said CP, thence southwards along said 23 * CP boundary to and continuing southwards and southwestwards along the northwestern boundary of Swillington CP to the northern boundary of

Eothwell Ward, thence northwestwards along said -ward boundary to the point of commencement.

GARFOROH AND SWILLINGTON WARD

The Parishes of Great and Little Preston

Swillington and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the north- eastern boundary of Swillington CP meets the southeastern boundary of

Austhorpe CP, thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary to and northeastwards along the eastern boundary of Barwick in -Elmet and

Scholes CP to and northeastwards along the southern boundary of

CP to and southeastwards along the western boundary of CP to Selby Road,'thence northwestwards along said road to Leeds Road, thence southwards along said road to a point opposite the drain that leads from south of Southfield Bungalow to The Beck, thence westwards.to and westwards and southwestwardss along said drain to the northeastern boundary of Swillington CP, thence northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement,/and also that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Great .and Little Preston CP meets the River Aire, thence southeastwards along said river to the southern boundary of the City, thence southwestwards and westwards along said city boundary to the eastern boundary of Rothwell Ward, thence northeastwards and northwestwards along said ward boundary to the southern boundary of Swillington CP, thence eastwards along said CP boundary and the southern boundary of Great and Little Preston CP to the point of commencement. 2k

BARWICK AND KIPPAX WARD

The Parishes of Ledsham Ledston Lotherton cum Aberford Micklefield Parlington Scarcroft Sturton Grange Thorner the Barwick Ward of the parish of Barwick in ELmet and Scholes and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the western boundary of Ledston CP meets the southern boundary of the City, thence southwest- wards along said city boundary to the eastern boundary of Garforth and Swillington Ward, thence northwestwards, northwards and eastwards along said ward boundary to the western boundary of Ledston CP, thence south- wards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

NORTH WARD

The Parish of Harewood and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the northern boundary of Moortown Ward meets the eastern boundary of Cookridge Ward, thence northeastwards and northwestwards along said eastern boundary to the footpath that leads from Otley Road to Arthington Road, thence north- eastwards along said path to Arthington Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the southern boundary of Arthington CP, thence northeast- wards, southeastwards, northwards and eastwards along said CP boundary to the southwestern boundary of Harewood CP, thence southeastwards, south- westwards, southeast wards and eastwards along said CP boundary to the . northern boundary of Roundhay Ward, thence southwestwards along said ward boundary and southeastwards along the western boundary of said ward to the northern boundary of Moortown Ward, thence westwards and southwest- wards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement. 25 OTLEY AND WHARFEDALE WARD

The Parishes of Arthington Bramhope Carlton Otley Pool and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Bramhope CP meets the southern boundary of Arthington CP, thence generally eastwards along said southern'boundary to the western boundary of North Ward, thence southeastwards and generally southwestwards along said boundary to the northern boundary of Cookridge Ward, thence northwestwards along said boundary to the eastern boundary of Bramhope CP, thence generally northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement,/ and also that area bounded by a line commencing at a point vhere the southern boundary of Bramhope CP meets the western boundary of Cook- ridge Ward, thence southeastwards along said ward boundary to the northern boundary of Horsforth Ward, thence southwestwards and westwards along said ward boundary to the eastern boundary of Aireborough Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to the southern boundary of Carlton CP, thence southeastwards along said CP boundary to and east- wards along the southern boundary of Bramhope CP to the point of commence- ment .

WHINMOOR WARD

The Scholes Ward of the parish of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes and that area bounded by a line commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Roundhay Ward meets the southern boundary of Thorner CP, thence east- wards along said CP boundary to the western boundary of Barwick in Elmet and Scholes CP, thence southwards and southeastwards along said CP boundary to the northern boundary of Halton Ward, thence southwestwards along said ward boundary to the eastern boundary of Seacroft Ward, thence northwest- wards along said eastern boundary to and northwestwards and northeastwards along the eastern boundary of Roundhay Ward to the point of commencement. 26

WETHERBY WARD

The parishes of Bardsey cum Rigton Boston Spa Bramham cum Oglethorpe Clifford Collingham East Keswick Thorp Arch Walton Wetherby Wothersome