BIRMINGHAM ELECTORAL WARD BOUNDARIES SUBMISSION JUNE 2016

On behalf of: Keith Hanson, Secretary, Labour Party Josh Jones, City Council Labour Group

Page 1 of 11

Introduction

Response to the Draft Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for

We are happy to agree to almost all of the report of the Local Government Boundary Commission England Report on the warding arrangements for Birmingham, but for a few changes to Ward names and two minor Ward boundary changes, all detailed below.

Many of the problems identified in our previous report, particularly in the South of the City, have been rectified and meet the statutory criteria of keeping communities together, while also maintaining a sensible level of electoral variance. Some potential problems still remain and they are detailed in the report below, but this is always to be anticipated as people do not simply associate with one community identity.

Our proposals are contained within the map attached to this document.

Page 2 of 11

Ward Name Members Electorate 2021 Variance Detail Ward 2 15402 -4.57 No amendment proposed. The proposed Aston Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, including Aston Park and Aston Villa FC. Birchfield Ward 1 7817 -3.02 No amendment proposed. The amended proposed Ward boundary means the entirety of Handsworth Park is now in the Handsworth Ward and makes more sense as a Boundary. We are happy to accept these proposals for the Birchfield Ward as they meet the statutory criteria. Bordesley & Highgate Ward 1 7367 -9.31 No amendment proposed. The proposed Bordesley & Highgate Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 7795 -3.31 No amendment proposed. The proposed Bordesley Green Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 15329 -5.06 No amendment proposed. The proposed Edgbaston Ward has some changes to our submission, noticeably moving The Warwickshire Cricket Club from the proposed Ward on the east of Edgbaston Ward the most noticeable. We feel that this would make more sense as part of the Balsall Heath Ward, particularly as the effects of match day parking at the Cricket Club predominantly affects the residents of the Balsall Heath Ward, the Boundary Commission report compels us to accept these proposals. Though we would ask you to think again about this proposal. Handsworth Ward 1 8042 -0.14 No amendment proposed. See comments on the Birchfield Ward. Ward 2 15564 -3.48 No amendment proposed. The proposed Handsworth Wood Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 17550 8.23 No amendment proposed. The proposed Harborne Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, except for the inclusion of the area between Metchley Lane to Harborne Park Road from the Edgbaston Ward, which we are happy to accept. Holyhead Ward 1 7681 -4.84 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Holyhead Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 15390 -4.65 No amendment proposed.

Page 3 of 11

The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Ladywood Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 7619 -5.70 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Lozells Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 8617 6.55 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Nechells Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Newtown Ward 1 8151 1.20 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Newtown Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Summerfield & Edgbaston 2 15517 -3.79 No amendment proposed, except change of name. North Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for North Edgbaston Ward reflects the identifiable (Formerly known as North community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, however we feel that the Ward Edgbaston) should be named Summerfield & Edgbaston North. The current Ward name rightly mentions the residents at the southern edge of the Ward, but there are many residents from the rest of the Ward who do not share any community identity with the name Edgbaston. These residents feel that Summerfield better represents them, as the park brings together a shared sense of identity, hence the new ward name. Soho & 2 15388 -4.67 No amendment proposed. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Soho & Jewellery Quarter Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. The name of Soho and Jewellery Quarter better reflects the communities that live in the ward than the previous name of did. Alum Rock Ward 2 17492 7.92 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Alum Rock Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our original submission and we are happy to accept this proposal. & Ward 2 15215 -5.85 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Bromford & Hodge Hill Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Garretts Green Ward 1 7314 -10.10 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Garretts Green Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for the exclusion of Duncroft Road and Gleneagles Road on the west of the Ward, into the neighbouring Yardley East Ward. We are happy to accept this amendment.

Page 4 of 11

Glebe Farm & Tile Cross Ward 2 17306 6.93 No amendment proposed. The boundaries of this ward are largely determined by the River Cole to the north, railway to the south and the city boundary to the east, as recognised in both our previous submissions and that of the boundary commission. Heartlands Ward 1 7875 -2.26 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Heartlands Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 8585 6.20 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Shard End Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Sheldon Ward 2 15629 -3.05 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sheldon Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 14677 -9.73 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Small Heath Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 7809 -3.12 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for South Yardley Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 16170 0. 39 Minor amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sparkbrook Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, except for a minor amendment to the eastern boundary that means all of the Balsall Heath Town Centre is contained within the Balsall Heath Ward, as defined in the Balsall Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan. Ward 1 8481 5.05 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Ward End Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Yardley East Ward 1 8545 5.76 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Yardley East Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, except for the inclusion of Duncroft Road and Gleneagles Road from the adjacent Garretts Green Ward, which we are happy to agree with. Yardley West & 1 7979 -0.93 No amendment proposed. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Yardley West & Stechford Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission.

Page 5 of 11

Castle Vale Ward 1 7405 -8.75 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 16694 3.52 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Erdington Ward contains the Wards of Erdington and Short Heath from our original submission and the area from the east of the proposed Ward, which uses the railway line as a boundary until the bridge above Summer Road. The boundary commission commentary persuades us to accept these proposals for Erdington Ward.

Kingstanding Ward 2 15520 -3.78 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 2 15668 -2.80 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Oscott Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Perry Beeches Ward 1 7588 -6.13 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Perry Beeches Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Perry Common Ward 1 8044 -0.11 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Perry Common Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, except for a minor change that includes all of Witton Lakes in the Stockland Green Ward. We are happy to accept this minor amendment, as it acts as a better boundary than our own. Perry Hall Ward 1 7991 -0.78 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Perry Hall Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Pype Hayes Ward 1 7917 -1.72 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Pype Hayes Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Stockland Green Ward 2 14576 -10.50 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Stockland Green Ward moves the area to the east of the cross city line from Erdington train station to the bridge on Summer Road from Stockland Green Ward to the Erdington Ward. A minor change on the west of the Ward means the entirety of Witton Lakes is within the Stockland Green Ward. We are happy to accept these proposals as they still keep the very clear and identifiable communities in Stockland Green together.

Page 6 of 11

Tyburn Ward 1 8003 -0.62 No amendment proposed. Except for a minor change that moves one half of Holly Lane from Tyburn Ward to Erdington Ward, the proposed Tyburn Ward reflects our original submission, provides clear and identifiable boundaries, with strong community identity. Ward 2 17431 7.61 No amendment proposed. The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a two-member Acocks Green Ward that has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a community identity that further supports the proposal. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals.

Balsall Heath Ward 1 7797 -3.17 Minor amendment proposed. Other than for a minor amendment proposed by us below, the proposal from the Boundary Commission for Balsall Heath Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for one exception. The Boundary Commission proposal sees the Warwickshire Cricket Club being moved to Edgbaston Ward. We feel this fit better with Balsall Heath, but are compelled to accept these proposals due to the findings in the Boundary Commission report.

Our minor amendment moves the Ward Boundary of Balsall Heath from the A435 to the Camp Hill Cord Line, which means the entirety of the Balsall Heath Town Centre, as detailed in the Balsall Heath Neighbourhood Development Plan, is contained within the Balsall Heath Ward that provides a better and more identifiable community boundary Billesley Ward 2 15412 -4.50 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Billesley Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our original submission and we are happy to accept this proposal. Ward 2 16519 2.51 No amendment proposed, other than name of Ward. (Formerly known as Hall The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a two-member Hall Green Ward Green North) that has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a community identity that further supports the proposal. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals. Hall Green South Ward 1 8569 6.02 No amendment proposed. The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a one-member Hall Green South Ward that has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a community identity that further supports the proposal. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals.

Page 7 of 11

Highter's Heath Ward 1 8472 4.95 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Highter’s Heath Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. & King's Heath 2 15418 -4.46 No amendment proposed, other than name of Ward. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission combines the Brandwood and King’s Heath Wards (Formerly known as King’s from our previous submission and also brings the northern boundary of the new Ward with Heath) further to the South. The evidence provided by the Boundary Commission compels us to accept the boundaries for the proposed Brandwood & King’s Heath Ward.

However, we do feel that the Brandwood name should still be part of the political map of Birmingham within this ward, since it has just as much historical significance to Birmingham as does.

Monyhull Ward 1 8103 0.62 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Monyhull Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Moseley Ward 2 17619 8.59 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Moseley Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, with the additional area surrounding Moseley Bog and the area that is affectionately known as the ‘red triangle’ added to the proposed Moseley Ward. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals. Ward 2 14991 -7.43 No amendment proposed. The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a two-member Sparkhill Ward, built around our Sparkhill and Springfield Wards, that has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a community identity that further supports the proposal. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals. & Ward 1 8500 5.26 No amendment proposed. The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a one-member Tyseley & Hay Mills Ward that has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a community identity that further supports the proposal. The boundary commission report on this area convinces us to agree with these proposals. Ward 1 8019 -0.42 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Allens Cross Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission.

Page 8 of 11

Bartley Green Ward 2 16901 4.71 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a minor change of boundary in the North East of the Ward, so that the boundary is now the Bourn Brook. & 2 16642 3.22 No amendment proposed. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Bournbrook & Selly Park Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. & Ward 2 15969 -0.85 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Bournville & Cotteridge Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Frankley Great Park Ward 1 8753 8.00 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Frankley Great Park Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. King's Norton North Ward 1 8160 1.31 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for King’s Norton North Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a very minor change of boundary. King's Norton South Ward 1 8162 1.34 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for King’s Norton South Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. & 1 8181 1.56 No amendment proposed. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Longbridge & Rubery Rednal Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a very minor change of boundary. Northfield Ward 1 8150 1.19 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Northfield Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a very minor change of boundary. Quinton Ward 2 16018 -0.55 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Quinton Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Stirchley Ward 1 7975 -0.98 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Stirchley Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission.

Page 9 of 11

Weoley & Ward 2 16799 4.13 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for & Selly Oak South Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a minor change to the northern boundary, so Stonehouse Lane becomes the Ward boundary. The Boundary Commission commentary convinces us to accept this proposal. West Heath North Ward 1 7666 -5.05 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for West Heath North Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. West Heath South Ward 1 7695 -4.65 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for West Heath South Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 8096 0.53 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Four Oaks Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission.

Sutton Mere Green Ward 1 8508 5.35 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Mere Green Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Sutton Reddicap Ward 1 8164 1.36 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Reddicap Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Sutton Ward 1 8739 7.85 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Roughley Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Ward 1 8322 3.23 Minor amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Trinity Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission, but for a minor change with detailed in the commentary below. Sutton Vesey Ward 2 17034 5.45 Minor amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Vesey Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our original submission, except for the inclusion of half of Sutton Park in the proposed ward which we believe is a very sensible suggestion. We have made one minor change to the North East of the Ward to include the school playing field off Monmouth Drive in the Sutton Vesey Ward rather than the Sutton Trinity Ward, as the only access

Page 10 of 11

to this field is from Monmouth Drive. Sutton & 2 16837 4.35 No amendment proposed. Ward The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Walmley & Minworth Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. Sutton Ward 1 8071 0.22 No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Sutton Wylde Green Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission.

Page 11 of 11