sign in sign up
<<
Home , Burton (near Tarporley), Little Stanney, Mickle Trafford, Winsford

Cheshire West and Liberal Democrats

Local Government Boundary Commission for – Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for West & Chester Council Published August 2017

Liberal Democrat Response to the Commission’s Draft Proposals

Introduction The Local Parties which cover the area of Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council (CW&CBC) have considered the draft proposals of the Commission and decided to comment on their proposals as whilst there are commendable proposals in the draft review, there are also proposals which should be challenged. We have taken note of the Commission’s remit when drawing up ward boundaries, namely: Subject to sub‐paragraph (2), in making the recommendations the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must have regard to— (a) the need to secure that the ratio of the number of local government electors to the number of members of the county council to be elected is, as nearly as possible, the same in every electoral area of the council, (b) the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and in particular— (i) the desirability of fixing boundaries which are and will remain easily identifiable, and (ii) the desirability of not breaking local ties when fixing boundaries, (c) the need to secure effective and convenient local government

In order to make our response to the Commission’s draft proposals clearer, we have adopted the order of the Commission’s Draft Electoral Review, e.g. deal with defined areas within CW&CBC as in the Review and within that section deal with each ward as per the Review. Council Size Although normally the council size is determined at the initial stage, we have made an exceptional proposal that the Commission have made a serious error of judgement when it comes to the allocation of wards and the consequent drawing of boundaries in one particular part of CW&CBC, as such we are suggesting that the number of councillors be 71 and not 70 as originally proposed. Please refer to the section commenting on the Chester wards in this regard.

Detailed Response to Draft Recommendations

Northern Rural Wards Marbury The general proposal about expanding Marbury ward to take in all the villages to the north of the makes sense in terms of communication, etc. Although we still do believe that is a natural part of this ward, the electoral arithmetic in the eastern end of the Borough makes this virtually impossible with the current constraints. But we do believe that a separate single member Barnton ward would make sense, this would form a ward of 4430 electors (approx. +7% above the average), although the remainder of Marbury as a two member ward would be 6665 electors (‐17% below the average). This is an exceptional variation, but given that Marbury is generally 1 composed of small rural villages and hamlets in a predominantly rural environment, whereas the village of Barnton is a 19th century industrial village with modern estates, centred on the former industry, the argument to have separate wards is strong. Particularly when in the Commission’s draft report para 43 the comment “we are persuaded by the evidence of the three parish councils that the issues faced by large and small rural areas are different in this area”, relating to Ashton, Dunham and Parish Councils, the argument successfully deployed here equally relates to Barnton and Marbury. The electoral imbalance here would be countered by the balance of rural and urban each area electing Councillors representing their respective areas more effectively. Although there is cooperation between all the local parish councils, the community identity among residents to Barnton is strong, whilst the adjacent villages, residents would have an equally strong small village identity quite different to their much larger neighbour down the road. Our alternative proposal: Barnton (1 member) Polling Districts: NA1‐3 Consisting of the village of Barnton only, with an electorate of 4430 (+7%) Marbury (2 members) Polling Districts: MF1, 5, 6; MG2; NA4‐11 Consisting of the proposed Marbury ward, minus Barnton village, with an electorate of 6665 electors (‐17%). Eddisbury Hill (Renamed and ) The retention of the current Tarvin and Kelsall ward, although taking in disparate communities of differing sizes (as in Marbury), does make electoral sense. There could be a split into a Tarvin and a Kelsall ward, but the necessary split up of communities with links to both of the main villages (or none) would not be logical, therefore we accept this proposal. However, there is a problem with the name. Eddisbury Hill is not the prominent hill, with the radio masts, which can be clearly seen behind Kelsall village and as you travel along the A54/A556. This hill is actually called “The Old Pale” (at 176 metres), a popular destination for walkers. Eddisbury Hill is another hill, lower in height (158 metres) and far less prominent about 1km away (completely unseen from Kelsall or Tarvin). Given this we would suggest that the retention of the existing name for this ward, “Tarvin and Kelsall”, which will have much more resonance with local residents. Elton and The proposal for a two member ward is as far as electoral numbers satisfactory, but this creates a ward with no natural commonality. The villages around Barrow, and Mickle Trafford are essentially commuter village to Chester, with a strong similarity of source of identity and shared services. Whereas Ince and the surrounding villages and hamlets do not have such a high level of commuting to Chester, most of the commuting is to the Stanlow industrial complex or itself. Community links would show that people in and around Barrow, Guilden Sutton and Mickle Trafford shop, work, learn, use health services based around Chester, whilst similarly people around Ince and nearby villages use Ellesmere Port based services such as Cheshire Oaks, Ellesmere Port Cottage Hospital, etc. Given the local knowledge expressed in the Review regarding and Lea‐by‐Backford, we would not argue with the apparent expressed desire to be warded with Mollington. The previous ward connection between these areas mentioned in another submission refers to a former Division, which at the best of interpretations was an attempt to “sweep” up the bits that did not fit easily into other County Divisions in nearby towns rather than any natural connection between them, additionally Guilden Sutton was not in this Division and Barrow only relatively recently. We therefore propose a single member ward of Mickle Trafford , to include Barrow, Dunham‐on‐the‐Hill and CP, Guilden Sutton and Mickle Trafford and District CP, with an electorate of 4405 (+9%); and a Elton ward of Elton and Ince CP, and District CP and Thornton Le Moors CP, with an electorate of 3523 (‐12%). Although there is disparity in electoral balance here, we feel that the differing rural communities need representation that better reflects these differences rather than one large conglomerate. Our proposal: Elton (1 member) Polling Districts: LB1‐7 2

The ward to consist of 3523 electors (‐12%). Mickle Trafford (1 member) Polling Districts: JD3; KD1‐3; LQ1‐7 The ward to consist of 4405 electors (+9%). Manley (Renamed KIngsley and ) This ward proposal reflects much of our initial plan for a ward in this area and we agree with this suggestion. However, the name of Manley, whilst being fairly central to the ward does not give justice to the area being the third largest parish in the ward. Therefore we proposed that the ward has a more meaningful name to local residents of “Kingsley and Ashton Hayes” which reflects the two largest communities in the ward and the geographical spread of the ward. Weaver and Cuddington This ward is not a natural boundary, nor a joining of closely comparable communities, but is the result of the need to retain reasonable electoral balance both here and adjacent communities. Therefore we agree to the proposal as the best option in the current circumstances. We disagree with the proposal to form a two member ward in Frodsham. One of the submissions to the Commission appears to go to great lengths to justify the retention of the current two member ward. Although Frodsham is as stated in the said submission, one town, there are considerable differences in the needs and requirements of local residents within the town, as such we believe representatives from the town should be elected to reflect this. Additionally there are differing areas within Frodsham as indicated by the existence of no less than four Town Council wards within the town. If there were such a strong coherence of community needs in Frodsham, there would be no need to split the town in such a way. We found it difficult to accept the Commission’s argument that one of the groups making a submission for a single Frodsham ward was backed up by two councillors, when in fact the councillors in question were members of the same group; circular arguments of this nature should be readily understood for their self‐perpetuating nature. As such we propose that there are two wards in Frodsham, on based on the Town Council wards of Castle Park and Overton & Four Crosses, to be called Frodsham Four Crosses, the other based on Waterside and Lakes, to be called Frodsham Waterside, the electorate is 4205 (+2%) and 3811 (‐6%) respectively. Finally, the addition of Kingsley Green into Frodsham (of whatever form the wards finally take) is a proposal we agree with. Helsby was split from Frodsham in the most recent review to become a single member ward, following a spirited campaign by local people. We suggested that this arrangement be retained in our draft proposals, and are happy to agree with the Commission on their plans. Southern Rural Wards Farndon The proposed Farndon ward was as per our original proposal, therefore we strongly agree with the Commission. This proposal gives both good electoral equality and significant cohesion of the small villages and hamlets south of Chester along the border with Wales which share many common services and challenges. Malpas Again the Commission’s proposals concur with our suggestion, there is no change to the existing boundary – one that has existed for a long time prior to the establishment of CW&CBC, and we strongly back this continued and logical linking of the area in the extreme south of the borough, bordered on three sides by Wales, Shropshire and . Although not quite the ward we proposed, the electoral variance is good and we have no problem with this proposal, as it represents good community linkage between Tattenhall as the main village in the area and the satellite villages and hamlets in the area to the west of the Hills. Chester Wards 3

Overleigh We found that the arguments put forward against our proposed three single member wards and the poor level of electoral quality were fair and that, reluctantly, we agree to the need to change our proposals. Our proposed Handbridge ward was too small given the planned size of the council. But equally, we were concerned about the assertion that all of the area to the south of the River Dee should be amalgamated into a large three member ward. Although the area may generically be termed “South Chester” by some, it certainly wasn’t a term our group would regard as in common use or indeed by any one we know, and is to be fair a construct in the minds of some. But what we are sure about is that people from this area and more widely across Chester would generally agree that this area is not one but a number of widely differing communities, with their own aspirations, day to day concerns, etc. Additionally whilst there are common services, some are unique to different parts of the area, e.g. primary schools (which all act as a focus to communities they serve), local shops, various denominations of churches, health centres. Additionally, on reading one of the submissions which rightly pointed that Stanley Park was cut off by a railway line from the ward it is currently in, Lache, there was an implication that a ward boundary change would end that isolated status. However when the map is studied the Stanley Park and Boundary Lane area is at the western most extreme of Lache, and in order for it to be “joined” to any adjacent residential areas it would have to be transferred into Wales from England, something which we believe to be beyond the remit the Commission. With regard to the proposed large development on Lache Lane (JE4 polling district), we propose that given the nature of the new build here it would be more logical to be included with Handbridge and Westminster Park ward, along with the small polling district of JL3 which is currently in Lache ward. We therefore propose that a two member ward is created to cover Handbridge and Westminster Park with an electorate of 8279 (+3%), and a single member ward to cover Lache with an electorate of 3923 (‐3%), each to be named as such. Our proposal: Handbridge and Westminster (2 members) Polling Districts: JE4; JJ1‐4; JL3 The ward to consist of 8279 electors (+3%). Lache (1 member) Polling Districts: JL1‐2 The ward to consist of 3923 electors (‐3%). & Huntington The proposed ward here has serious problems with regard to the community links between very diverse geographic areas, which are split into three separate areas neither of which can access the other two without leaving the ward and travelling some miles through the centre of Chester or into and out of Wales to complete the journey, therefore representing this ward would present particular difficulties. Neither are there strong natural ties between these areas. Given the proximity of the Welsh border and the southern edge of the city of Chester, this is not an easy boundary to draw, but we believe our proposal is the most logical from the point of representing local people. We propose that this ward be split into two single member wards. Firstly by retaining the existing and Huntington ward, this provides continuity for local residents who are used to electing a councillor for their combined area of the small villages to the south west of Chester and the suburban parish of Huntington, this would have an electorate of 4474 (+11%) although slightly over the accepted 10% limit, we think the better geographic representation would compensate for the slight loss of electoral balance. Secondly by creating another ward from the remainder of the draft proposal, which is a natural area consisting of the parishes mostly along the A41 south east from Chester, Christleton, Rowton and Waverton plus Littleton on the A51. All these parishes are currently in the same ward, geographically compact and have had a history of collective representation, also they are very similar in being commuter areas into Chester often using the same facilities. This ward would have 3842 electors (‐4%) a reasonable electoral balance. Our proposal: Dodleston and Huntington (1 member) Polling Districts: JE1‐3, JE5‐9

4

The ward to consist of 4474 electors (+11%). Christleton and Waverton (1 member) Polling Districts: JD1‐2; KA1‐4 The ward to consist of 3842 electors (+‐4%). Newton and This proposal is novel, although given that in the past (for electoral balance purposes) a former Cheshire County Council division did indeed include Hoole and part of Newton, otherwise Hoole and Newton have always been separate wards. One of the major reasons for this is that whilst, as your draft report rightly states “the railway line is a good boundary to the ward’s south and west” which is clearly marked on most maps, between Hoole and Newton there is a former railway line in the form of either a substantial embankment or a cutting, thus creating a very obvious and permanent boundary between the two communities. This boundary has caused, over the past 150 or more years for each area to develop totally separately and in different ways. Hoole being mostly a mixture of Victorian and Edwardian developments with a vibrant retail and social centre on Faulkner Street, whilst Newton is a range of developments from post First World War up to the 1960’s with more modern shopping arcades, etc. Local residents also use different facilities, such as schools, medical centres, etc. It can be clearly seen that each area has its own unique environment which needs to be represented on their own merits. Our original proposal was for two single member wards in Hoole and one two member ward in Newton. Given the drafting of neighbouring wards we propose that Newton be represented by a single member with an electorate of 4208 (+4%) and Hoole be represented by two members with an electorate of 7142 (‐11%). Although it could be fairly argued that there is an electoral imbalance, we believe the different communities would be better represented if they had separate wards, a concern we have is that electors in Newton could easily loss out if, say, all three members were from Hoole (with the much larger electorate) and were perhaps to take an impartial approach to any decisions which may affect either area disproportionately. Our proposal: Hoole (2 members) Polling Districts: JK1‐6 The ward to consist of 7142 electors (‐11%). Newton (1 member) Polling Districts: JN2‐4 The ward to consist of 4208 electors (+4%). Upton Our original proposal was for two single member wards, however given the planned size of the council this makes one of our proposed wards small by too great a margin. Also we believe that the transfer of the Newton polling district JN5 into Upton, purely for reasons of electoral balance poorly reflects the community links which local residents have within Newton for schools, shops, and social activities. Therefore we reluctantly agree to the Commission’s proposal for a two member ward in Upton. and Chester City Blacon is a clearly a geographically separate district of Chester, distinct and its residents fiercely proud of their area, we would prefer to keep Blacon as separate entity with three members from one ward. Chester City takes in a diverse area, which often has little in common with other parts of the ward and we are concerned that this lack of cohesiveness will detract from the quality of representation for local residents. The proposal to transfer half of Garden Quarter ward into Blacon would result in better electoral equality, but the consequential loss of Garden Quarter ward would be detrimental to a highly distinctive part of Chester between the city walls, the River Dee and Parkgate Road. The community here has had a common warding arrangement going back many decades, being of mainly 19th century terraced housing with local shops, pubs, and a very strong community identity, boosted by the presence of the University in its boundary.

We therefore disagree with the Commission on their proposals for this part of Chester and make a strong counter proposal that an additional member be elected to CW&CBC (beyond the 70 currently proposed). Our proposal: 5

Blacon (3 members) Polling Districts: JA1‐6

This would consist of the current ward boundary and an electorate of 10261 (‐15%). Appreciably lower than the 10% variation allowed, but this does give room to create a far more community based warding arrangement.

Chester City (3 members) Polling Districts: JB1‐4; JC1‐5; JN1; JN6 As per the Commission’s proposals, but minus the JG2 polling district, giving an electorate of 10072 (‐16%). We did strongly consider creating a separate Boughton ward (which would be desirable for reasons of local representation), but this made the electoral variance of the remaining City ward too poor to be considered.

Garden Quarter (1 member) Polling Districts: JG1,2 Retention of the existing ward, for reasons given above, giving an electorate of 3671 (‐8%). Boughton Heath We agree with the proposal from the Commission to split the current ward into two separate single member wards. This is in accordance with the existing warding arrangement within Great Boughton Parish Council, where the local community split along the Shropshire Union Canal is drawn. Boughton Heath covers most of the modern estate either side of Caldy Valley Road and a section of Whitchurch Road and the developments adjacent to it, there are local shops, churches, schools, etc, within the area which local people use. We strongly back the Commission’s plan for a Boughton Heath ward. The northern half of Great Boughton Parish, and as said above its own parish ward. Vicars Cross is a self‐contained area on the eastern fringe of Chester, with its own shops, churches, schools, etc, well used by local residents. Again we believe the Commission have made a very good proposal based on a well‐defined community. Ellesmere Port Wards Ledsham and Manor This ward combines all the areas to the west of the A41, although most community links appear to be across the A41 to adjacent shopping, social, religious, educational, etc, facilities which is why we proposed a different arrangement. However, the electoral balance is fairer. (Renamed to Riveacre) This ward is a reflection of the ward we proposed. The difficulty here is that half the proposed ward is locally known as Great Sutton, the other half Little Sutton, the generally acknowledged boundary being along Parklands in the centre of the proposed ward. Obviously to name this ward either Great or Little Sutton appears somewhat illogical. However, in the 1999 boundary review of the former Ellesmere Port and BC, the Commission agreed that a ward of very similar boundaries should be named Riveacre, reflecting the Riveracre valley stretching through the ward. This we believe would be a better name for the ward and not generally misleading as to the area it covers. Strawberry and Sutton This is almost a merging of two wards we proposed using these names, therefore a reasonable boundary, although we would prefer single member ward where practicable. As such we agree with the proposal by the Commission. Whitby Groves and Whitby Heath Wards (Renamed to Whitby South and Whitby Park) We think that the Commission have made an error in the production of their ward map on page 20 of the review. The ward indicated there as “Whitby Heath” and “Whitby Groves” have been transposed for some reason, given this error is accepted by the Commission we are making a proposal to improve the ward naming. Firstly Whitby Heath (the northerly of the wards) the suggested title would not resonate with local residents very well, or at least sufficiently for then to make an immediate identification with it. We propose instead the ward is names after the most prominent local feature, the park, e.g. “Whitby Park”.

6

Secondly, Whitby Groves, the southerly of the wards) we again do not believe that the ward title gives a fair description of the ward. The “Groves” title actually refers to one corner of the ward where a number of the roads happen to be called Grove (Maple Grove, Elm Grove, etc) and came into being at the most recent electoral review. Given that this area represents only about 25% of the electorate, and that recent developments have altered the area, we would suggest that the name of “Whitby South” would be more appropriate for this ward. Subject to these comments we agree with Commission’s proposals for both wards. Netherpool We feel the area adjacent to Little Sutton has strong justification to be in a ward centred around that part of the town. But the Commission’s proposals have much greater electoral fairness, therefore with some reservations, we agree to the Commission’s proposal. and Grange Covering the town centre and nearby areas, whilst preferring a ward based on the town itself plus a separate ward for the areas to the west of the town centre, this proposal does ensure electoral fairness elsewhere across Ellesmere Port. Again, although we have reservations, we agree to the proposed ward Westminster As the Commission’s proposal gives a fairer electoral balance (than our proposals) and does reflect natural community boundaries, which are immediately constricted by geographic, industrial and railway features, we agree with the this ward proposal. Wolverham As this ward is very similar to the proposal we made, apart from the logical move to ensure the whole of the Great Hall Park development is within Overpool and grange ward, we are in agreement with this ward proposal. Neston Wards Neston and Parkgate We consider that the proposal for a three member ward covering the whole of Neston and Parkgate represents poor reflection of the differing communities within this area, Neston is town with its own retail, social and community links, whilst Parkgate a former port on the River Dee with its unique environment and strong local community. We propose the following three alternative single member wards (Note: this will affect the Neston Town Council warding arrangements, but Ellesmere Port and Neston Liberal Democrats have made a separate submission on this subject): Parkgate and Neston North This includes all of the current Parkgate ward (LH1 and LH2), plus the northern part of Neston LF1. Parkgate, with its own very distinct coastal identity and strong community links, will form the greater part of this ward, whilst Neston North will unite the all areas in the north of Neston served by Road and Upper Raby Park Road. There are good communication routes between the two areas via Liverpool Road/Parkgate Road as well via the Chester High Road (A540), the Runnel and Boathouse Lane. The ward would consist of 4,415 electors (+9.6%) Neston and Would comprise most of Neston (the rest of LF1) and Little Neston (all LE4 and most of LE5). This ward would combine the main part of Neston and a slightly redrawn Little Neston. There are excellent communications via Bushell Road/Mellock Lane between Neston and the centre of Little Neston, as well as via Bridge Street/ Road. The housing area around Station Road which is currently divided between two wards would be entirely within the proposed one. There are strong community links between Neston and Little Neston, both of which are served by facilities such as Neston Youth and Community Centre and Mellock Lane Clinic.

7

The ward would consist of 4,408 electors (+9.5%) Riverside and Burton This will include all of the existing Riverside (LE3) which will be slightly enlarged by the inclusion of the LE5 area west of Burton Road. It will also include all of Ness (LE2) slightly enlarged by part of LE5 on School Lane. It would also include all of Burton unparished area. Riverside is a distinct area bounded by the Dee marshes and has undeveloped land to the west, south and partly to the north. The main routes through the area, namely West Vale and Marshlands Road, connect to Burton Road which also links Ness and Burton. We are proposing a small enlargement of Riverside (LE3) to take in the area west of Burton Road (currently in polling district LE5). Having considered a number of options in this area, we feel that Burton Road forms a clear and distinct line separating it from Little Neston to the east. We have also slightly enlarged Ness (LE2) to unite the houses on opposite sides of School Lane. The ward would consist of 4,386 electors (+8.9%) and Mollington These proposals, with the addition of Lea‐by‐Backford, are very similar to are original suggestions, and are happy to accept the Commissions plans. Willaston and Thornton Again, apart from minor additions, this is similar to our proposals, and agree with the Commission. Wards Hartford and Greenbank Our original proposal included Whitegate parish within this ward, which was rejected by the Commission on the grounds that there were no community link between Hartford and Whitegate, although there may be some truth in this to then locate Whitegate with a ward where there is even less community of a link we think is a weak argument. Any survey of Whitegate residents would indicate greater affinity to Hartford rather than Winsford. But the ward in itself, with the minor changes proposed, we agree with the Commission’s proposals. Northwich There is a very strong case to be made, given the projected large increase in electors within the Winnington part of this proposed ward to create a single member ward, and the numbers would give a reasonable degree of electoral balance. But this would leave the remaining Castle area with too diminished a number of electors to justify a ward of its own, even considering a possible Castle and Greenbank ward would then leave Hartford ward with too small an electorate. So although we would prefer single member wards in this area, to reflect the differing nature of Winnington (a mostly new development with an older core) and Castle (a mainly 19th and first half 20th century development with a mature shopping area), we have to agree with reservations to the Commission’s proposal here. , Moulton and Kingsmead Ideally we would have preferred to see a separate Kingsmead ward, which would be under the electoral average, as Kingsmead is a separate and very different community to Davenham and Moulton, much of the ward being a development under twenty years old compared to the other communities dating back to the 19th century and before. (Please note that the students observed by the Commission crossing the A556 to Davenham would have been attending school and college, not located within Kingsmead, but rather in and Northwich.) But this would leave the remaining Davenham and Moulton with an electorate in excess of 20% over the electoral average, which is not a proposal that the Commission would accept. Therefore, again with reservation, we accept the Commission’s proposal. Additionally we think the name, although a mouthful is a fair reflection of the area it covers. Northwich Leftwich The Leftwich proposal matches exactly our original proposals, therefore we readily agree to the creation of this new ward as the Commission has proposed. Northwich Witton Again as the Commission have almost matched exactly our proposal for a single member Witton ward to cover the area of the town centre and to the east of Northwich, we are in agreement with this proposal. 8

Rudheath At the risk of repeating ourselves, the Commission have almost matched our proposal for single member ward in and are in full agreement with the Commission’s proposal. This is an area with a strong social cohesion, based on many people working (or had worked) at the former ICI plants in this area which the company encouraged sporting and social activities outside of the workplace, much of which still exists today. Shakerley Our proposed Lostock and ward was rejected by the Commission, primarily because of the difficulty in allocating the remaining part of Shakerley ward to anywhere logical, given its remoteness from the rest of the CW&CBC a case could be made for it to be transferred to Cheshire East Borough Council – but that could only be a decision for local residents to make. Our suggestion this area should be linked with Davenham and Moulton ward was not without its merits. However, we have to agree with the Commission on this proposal for the ward in the current light of no practical alternative. Winsford and Wards Tarporley Although the Commission have proposed a ward slightly different to our proposal (i.e. that Tiverton and stay with Tattenhall ward), the proposal is still a good one. We are particularly pleased that, as we proposed, will stay in Tarporley ward, and not be submerged into a large overwhelmingly urban ward within Winsford which was proposed by other groups. As such we agree with the Commission’s proposals. Winsford Over and Verdin Our proposals here were limited by the difficulty in splitting the ward into three single or a single and a two member ward without cutting across well‐established community boundaries such as the Grange estate, which would have been a poor outcome in terms of representation for local people. Also we were very much aware that residents of Whitegate preferred to be warded with Hartford and not Winsford, and that would be our preferred option but given the limits of electoral variance, even when allowing for the major new developments in the Over part of Winsford, the case for splitting this ward into smaller units is difficult, although possible future developments may create the opportunity for a separate Over ward. Therefore, with these reservations, we agree with the Commission’s proposal for this ward. Winsford Dene The Dene area of Winsford consist of much of the town centre, a mixture of 19th century terraced housing, a large post war estate of social housing and growing modern estates some of which are under construction, with its own school and other social amenities. The Dene is an area strongly identified with by many people who live there and very much the heart of the town. Given that this exactly reflects our proposals for Dene ward, we are in agreement with the Commission’s proposals here. Winsford Gravel The recreation of the former BC ward (and still the Winsford Town Council ward) is a welcome move, as this reflects the local community which is broadly based on the Station Road area, including various estates to the north and south of there. Again, following our identical proposal the Commission have agree with us and we fully back their proposal. Winsford Swanlow Swanlow is the south west part of Winsford, broadly speaking the area to the west of Swanlow Lane, mostly residential, consisting of mainly 1960’s and 70’s housing developments with some social housing and little scope for any future major development. Swanlow has its own school, church and social facilities, a popular location for families to settle, often moving within Swanlow as families grow and then later in life contract. is small village just outside Winsford and has long been warded with Swanlow, given the fairly similar residential nature of both communities albeit with a large difference in size, the link should be retained. As this is as per our proposal, we agree with the Commission’s proposals. Winsford Wharton 9

Wharton forms the North east corner of Winsford a mixture of 19th century terraced housing, much social housing from the 1960’s and more recent private developments. We support the creation of a single member ward here (as in the rest of Winsford and elsewhere within CW&CBC) as this enables the elected representative to focus on the community they represent and, more importantly, the electorate to have a single point of contact when they need to communicate with their elected councillor. The addition of to the ward was not expected, as Bostock does not have a history of being warded with Wharton, but if Bostock were to be kept with Davenham, Moulton and Kingsmead ward the electoral balance would be fairly large, therefore we go along with that plan. As such we agree with the Commission’s proposal

Conclusions We were pleased that the Commission agreed with us on many of our original proposals, and glad that they have been taken on board, hopefully they will still be there in the final recommendations. We did, however, have a number of issues with the draft proposals as detailed above. Some are minor tweaks or ward name changes, others are more radical. But our overriding concern was that fair community representation, whether that is measured in terms of electors, identity or geography should be treated equally to ensure that the final outcome gives a fair reflection of the communities that elected councillors will eventually represent. That is why we have felt it necessary to vary ward sizes outside of the +/‐10% rule in a number of cases, often by a small margin; one or two of our proposed wards have ended rather more in excess of this, these were only included after very strong representation from our local people on the ground after we had established there were genuine grounds for their concerns. Hopefully the Commission will accommodate our proposed changes to the draft recommendations, which we believe will result in better outcome for fair community representation within the council. ENDs

10