Final recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for County Council

Electoral review

October 2011

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2011 Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and final recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 7 Electoral arrangements 8 Chase District 9 Borough 9 District 11 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough 12 District 13 Borough 14 District 16 Tamworth Borough 16 Conclusions 16 Parish electoral arrangements 17

3 What happens next? 21

4 Mapping 23

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 24

B Code of practice on written consultation 27

C Table C1: Final recommendations for Staffordshire 29 County Council

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Staffordshire County Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in September 2010.

This review was conducted as follows:

Stage Stage starts Description Council 14 September 2010 Submission of proposals for council size to the Size LGBCE One 30 November 2010 Submission of proposals of warding arrangements to the LGBCE Two 22 February 2011 LGBCE’s analysis and deliberation Three 24 May 2011 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 2 August 2011 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

The Commission proposed an unchanged council size of 62, with 58 single-member divisions and two two-member divisions. Our proposals were largely based on a combination of three county-wide schemes received at Stage One: one from the County Council, one from a Staffordshire resident and one unattributed scheme. In some districts, we accepted or proposed modifications to the county-wide schemes to better adhere to our statutory criteria.

Submissions received

During Stage Three, we received 75 representations. Many of these concerned our proposed boundary in the Stretton area of East Staffordshire Borough. We also received a number of representations in relation to our proposals in the area of South Staffordshire, and in the towns of Stafford and Stone in Stafford Borough. We received a smaller number of submissions for other areas. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

1 Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

Staffordshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2016, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our recommendations in 2011. This is prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). These forecasts projected an increase in electorate of just under 3% over this period. We are content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time and have used these as the basis of our final recommendations.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received during Stage Three, we confirm the draft recommendations as final with the exception of boundary changes in East Staffordshire Borough, South Staffordshire District and Stafford Borough.

We confirm our recommendation for 58 single-member divisions and two two- member divisions. Only four divisions will have an electoral variance of greater than 10% by 2016.

We believe that our proposals will ensure good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and providing for effective and convenient local government, having taken into account evidence we have received during Stages One and Three.

What happens next?

We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Staffordshire County Council. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for Staffordshire County Council, in 2013.

We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who have contributed to the review through expressing their views and advice. The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

2 1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review Staffordshire County Council’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We wrote to Staffordshire County Council as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals first on the council size and then on division arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review informed our Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Staffordshire County Council, which were published on 24 May 2011. We have now reconsidered the draft recommendations in light of the further evidence received and decided whether or not to make modifications to them.

What is an electoral review?

3 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

4 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents, reflecting community identity and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in Staffordshire?

5 We decided to conduct this review because, based on the December 2009 electorate figures, 42% of divisions in the county have electoral variances of over 10% from the average. Most notably, the existing Keele & Westlands division has 23% more electors than the county average.

How will the recommendations affect you?

6 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your division name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. If you live in a parish, the name or boundaries of that parish will not change.

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4 2 Analysis and final recommendations

8 We have now finalised our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Staffordshire County Council.

9 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Staffordshire is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  have regard to the boundaries of district and borough wards in drawing boundaries for county divisions  ensure that proposed county divisions do not cross external district and borough boundaries  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular - the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable - the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

10 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of the implementation of the review. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward at the end of the review.

11 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that, in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

12 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Staffordshire County Council or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 Submissions received

13 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited Staffordshire County Council and met with members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 15 submissions at council size stage, 26 submissions during Stage One and 75 during Stage Three, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

14 We take the evidence received during consultation very seriously and the submissions received were carefully considered before we formulated our final recommendations. Officers from the Commission have also been assisted by officers at Staffordshire County Council who have provided relevant information throughout the review. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance.

Electorate figures

15 As part of this review, Staffordshire County Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2016, projecting an increase in electorate of just under 3% over the period from 2010 to 2016.

16 Two existing county divisions, namely Stafford Central and Lichfield Rural North, were forecast to have significant electorate growth owing to the projected completion of new dwellings in these areas. Forecasts for electorate growth in other divisions were modest.

17 The County Council provided us with a detailed methodology for their electorate forecasts, which included analysis of population change, changing household composition and the location and level of future house building. We are satisfied that the methodology used was rigorous and are content to accept these forecast electorate figures as the basis for our final recommendations.

Council size

18 Staffordshire County Council currently has 62 councillors elected from 59 county divisions. At the beginning of the electoral review, we consulted locally on the most appropriate number of councillors (council size) for the authority and received 15 submissions. With one exception, respondents either proposed to retain the existing council size of 62 or did not make a direct comment on the most appropriate council size.

19 The County Council proposed to retain the existing council size of 62. It cited evidence relating to the existing political management structure of the council and the workloads of members to support an unchanged council membership.

20 A local resident proposed to reduce the membership of the council to 60. He justified this by stating that it would provide for greater electoral equality between districts when members were allocated to them.

6 21 We concluded at Stage One that we would only be minded to reduce the council size on this basis if it were not possible to provide for satisfactory electoral equality under a 62-member scheme. Accordingly, during Stage One we invited proposals for division patterns based on a council size of 62.

22 Based on the evidence received, we proposed a council size of 62 at Stage One. We did not receive any further evidence about council size at Stage Three and therefore confirm the council size of 62 members as final.

Electoral fairness

23 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

24 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The county average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the county (660,398 in 2010 and 678,716 by 2016) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 62 under our final recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our final recommendations is 10,652 in 2010 and 10,947 by 2016.

25 Under the final recommendations, only four of our proposed 62 divisions will have electoral variances of more than 10% from the average for the county by 2016. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our final recommendations for Staffordshire.

General analysis

26 Our draft recommendations were largely based on a combination of the three county-wide schemes we received at Stage One: one from the County Council, one from a local Staffordshire resident and one unattributed scheme. In some districts, we accepted or proposed modifications to the county-wide schemes to better adhere to our statutory criteria.

27 Our draft recommendations were based on a council size of 62 members and proposed a pattern of 58 single-member divisions and two two-member divisions. The allocation of councillors across the districts were as follows:

 Cannock Chase – seven members  East Staffordshire – eight members  Lichfield – eight members  Newcastle-under-Lyme – nine members  South Staffordshire – eight members  Stafford – nine members  Staffordshire Moorlands – seven members  Tamworth – six members

7 28 At Stage Three, the County Council made a submission proposing amendments to the draft recommendations in the districts of East Staffordshire, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, South Staffordshire and Stafford.

29 We also received a submission from the Staffordshire resident who previously submitted a county-wide scheme at Stage One. He proposed amendments to the draft recommendations in the districts of East Staffordshire, Stafford and South Staffordshire. Staffordshire County Labour Party also commented on the draft proposals in each of the districts.

30 In addition to these representations, we received submissions from three district councils, three Members of Parliament, four county councillors, two borough councillors, two town and parish councillors, one constituency party, 12 Parish and Town Councils (one of which also sent a petition against our draft proposals) and 44 other local residents.

31 The majority of these submissions focused on specific areas, in particular the village of Stretton in East Staffordshire Borough, the towns of Stafford and Stone in Stafford Borough, and the village of Penkridge in South Staffordshire District. We also received a smaller number of submissions covering other specific parts of the county.

32 A small number of submissions opposed our decision to recommend two two- member divisions as part of our draft recommendations, arguing that these compromised effective and convenient local government and that it would be better for the county to have a uniform pattern of single-member divisions.

33 Our final recommendations for Staffordshire are for 58 single-member divisions and two two-member divisions. Four divisions would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% by 2016.

34 We consider our proposals will ensure good electoral equality while providing an accurate reflection of community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during Stages One and Three.

35 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table C1 (on pages 29–34) and Map 1.

Electoral arrangements

36 This section of the report details the submissions received, our consideration of them, and our final recommendations for each area of Staffordshire. The following areas are considered in turn:

(page 9)  East Staffordshire Borough (pages 9–11)  (pages 11–12)  Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough (pages 12–13)  South Staffordshire District (pages 13–14)  Stafford Borough (pages 14–16)  Staffordshire Moorlands District (page 16) 8  Tamworth Borough (page 16)

37 Details of the final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 29–34 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Cannock Chase District

38 Cannock Chase District currently has six electoral divisions, of which one is two-member and five are single-member.

39 In our draft recommendations, we proposed that no changes be made to the existing division boundaries in Cannock Chase District. We considered alternative schemes from the County Council and Cannock Chase District Council, but rejected them on the grounds that they each necessitated the creation of unviable parish wards in the Brindley Heath parish.

40 Our proposals would mean that five of the six divisions would be within 10% of the county average by 2016, while one division, Etching Hill & Heath, would be 14% smaller.

41 In its Stage Three submission, Staffordshire County Council did not propose alternative arrangements for the north of the District owing to the constraints imposed by parish warding requirements in the Brindley Heath area.

42 We also received submissions at Stage Three from Brindley Heath Parish Council and Brereton & Ravenhill Parish Council, both of which supported our draft recommendations.

43 During Stage Three we received no proposals for alternative division boundaries in Cannock Chase district. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Cannock Chase as final.

East Staffordshire Borough

44 East Staffordshire Borough has eight single-member divisions. At the draft recommendations stage, we proposed a scheme for East Staffordshire based on the proposal of a Staffordshire resident.

45 As well as the County Council’s Stage Three submission, the Staffordshire resident proposed a new scheme for the borough. We also received submissions from the county councillors for the Needwood Forest and Horninglow & Stretton divisions. In addition, objections were received from Stretton Parish Council, 26 Stretton residents, and a petition signed by 122 residents in opposition to our proposals.

46 The County Council, the Staffordshire resident and Councillor Corbett of Needwood Forest division all opposed our proposed boundary for the Rural division. The County Council provided evidence to support the inclusion of the parishes of Hoar Cross and Newborough in the Needwood Forest division, and the transfer of the parish of Draycott in the Clay to the Uttoxeter Rural division.

9 47 In addition, Councillor Corbett argued that the parishes of Hoar Cross and Newborough looked to the larger village of Yoxall for their local amenities, and towards Burton-upon-Trent as the most accessible major population centre.

48 Having assessed the evidence at Stage Three, we are persuaded that the County Council’s alternative boundary for Uttoxeter Rural provides for a better balance of our statutory criteria than our draft proposals. In particular, we accept that the parishes of Marchington and Draycott in the Clay look to Uttoxeter as their major population centre, while the parishes of Hoar Cross and Newborough look east to Burton-upon-Trent via Yoxall.

49 We have therefore decided to adopt the County Council’s proposed Uttoxeter Rural boundary as part of our final recommendations. This would mean the modified Uttoxeter Rural division would have 4% fewer electors than the county average by 2016, while the Needwood Forest division would have 9% more. We propose a further amendment to the boundary of Dove division, discussed below.

50 Our draft recommendations for the boundary between the Horninglow & Stretton division and the Dove division attracted a significant number of responses at Stage Three.

51 We proposed that a section of Stretton parish, comprising around 1,000 electors, should be transferred into the Dove division in order to provide for improved electoral equality. Many respondents at Stage Three argued that dividing the parish between three county electoral divisions would be detrimental to community identity.

52 The County Council, Stretton Parish Council and Councillor Staples argued that a more appropriate solution would be to combine the parishes of Stretton and Rolleston-on-Dove in a new division, named Rolleston & Stretton.

53 In order to provide for satisfactory electoral equality, the County Council reaffirmed its Stage One proposal that a part of Horninglow, comprising around 3,450 electors, should be transferred into the Dove division instead. This solution would result in a Dove division having 11% fewer electors than the county average by 2016, while Rolleston & Stretton division would have 8% more.

54 The County Council provided some evidence in support of its proposed boundary, notably that this part of Horninglow represented a ‘gateway’ to Burton- upon-Trent from the rural area, including the local hospital.

55 On balance, we accept that splitting the parish of Stretton into three divisions would be detrimental to community identity. However, we are still not persuaded that it is appropriate to include the part of Horninglow proposed by the County Council in a rural division. We consider this area is distinctively urban and shares few apparent community ties with the rural area.

56 The Staffordshire resident proposed an alternative boundary at Stage Three. This involved transferring a section of Horninglow ward north of Field Lane and Horninglow Road North into the Dove division. This area contains around 1,200 electors.

10 57 We found the rationale for this boundary more persuasive than the County Council’s proposed boundary, as the suburban area in question borders a suburban section of Outwoods parish which already lies within Dove division.

58 We therefore consider that this area can be said to have community ties to its north, in the Dove division, as well as to the south, in the Horninglow & Stretton division. We consider this amended boundary would not be disproportionately detrimental to community identity.

59 We have therefore adopted the revised proposal of the Staffordshire resident as part of our final recommendations. Under this scheme, the Dove division will have 8% fewer electors than the county average by 2016, while the Horninglow & Stretton division will have 5% more electors.

60 We received no submissions on our other proposed divisions of Burton Town, Burton Tower, Burton Trent or Uttoxeter Town. We therefore confirm our recommendations for these divisions as final. Burton Town and Uttoxeter Town will have 10% more and 5% more electors than the county average by 2016 respectively. Burton Tower and Burton Trent will each have electorates equal to the county average.

Lichfield District

61 Lichfield District has eight single-member divisions. Owing to the allocation of councillors in a 62-member council, the district is somewhat over-represented by comparison with the remainder of the county.

62 At draft recommendations stage, we made proposals for Lichfield District based on a scheme from Lichfield City Council, which shared some boundaries with the proposal from the County Council.

63 At Stage Three, the County Council reaffirmed its Stage One proposal, while the City Council supported our draft recommendations. We also received a submission from Hints with Canwell Parish Council arguing that the boundary review was unnecessary, and from Councillor Erica Bayliss objecting to the proposed boundaries of the Lichfield Rural South division.

64 The County Council provided further evidence for its Stage One proposal. In particular, it argued that its proposed divide of Lichfield City anticipated further projected population growth, which would otherwise leave the area under- represented in the future. It also stated that the proposed boundary provided a strong road connection and community linkages between the section of Lichfield City and the remainder of the rural division.

65 By contrast, the County Council argued that our draft recommendations created ‘unnecessary over-representation’ in Lichfield Rural East. It also disputed the suggestion from the City Council that planned development at Whittington Barracks in Lichfield Rural East would create a larger electorate in that division.

11 66 Councillor Bayliss, in supporting the County Council’s proposal, also noted that the parishes of Weeford and Hints with Canwell were separated from the remainder of Lichfield Rural South by major roads.

67 Lichfield City Council’s Stage Three submission stated that the removal of a further section of the Lichfield urban area into a predominantly rural division would be detrimental to community identity and confusing to the electorate.

68 We concur with the view of Lichfield City Council and are not persuaded that the removal of a further part of Lichfield City into a predominantly rural division has satisfactory regard for community identity. In our view, our proposed boundary maintains community ties and provides for adequate electoral equality. Under our proposals, Lichfield Rural East would have 11% fewer electors than the average by 2016, while Lichfield Rural South would have 10% fewer and Lichfield City South would have 1% more.

69 We did not receive any contrary submissions in relation to any of our other proposed boundaries in Lichfield District. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Lichfield District as final.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

70 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough currently has seven single-member divisions and one two-member division.

71 Our draft recommendations proposed nine single-member divisions in the Borough. Our recommendations were predominantly based on the submission from the County Council, with one modification based on a proposal by the MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Paul Farrelly.

72 We also made a minor modification to the Council’s proposed Newcastle South division boundary, so that it ran directly south down the A519 rather than following the ward boundary to the east of Dellbrook Court.

73 The County Council and local member Councillor Simon Tagg objected to this amendment, arguing that it further breached coterminosity by splitting the Westlands ward between electoral divisions, and that it would lead to similar properties on either side of the road being placed in different divisions.

74 We proposed this amendment as part of our draft recommendations in order to ensure satisfactory internal transport links within the Newcastle South division. Without it, it would not be possible to traverse the entire division by road without leaving the division. For this reason, we do not consider that the alternative proposal would provide for effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendation for the Newcastle South division as final.

75 We received no further objections to the draft recommendations in the borough, although Stoke-on-Trent North MP Joan Walley wrote to express her concerns about the boundaries relating to the town of . However, she did not propose an

12 alternative boundary at Stage Three. We have therefore decided to confirm the remainder of our draft recommendations for Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough as final.

South Staffordshire District

76 South Staffordshire currently has six single-member divisions and one two- member division.

77 At draft recommendations stage, we proposed that the boundaries of , and , & divisions remain unchanged. We proposed amended boundaries in the areas of Penkridge, , and to provide for improved electoral equality.

78 In the north of the district, we proposed to transfer the ward of Penkridge West into the Brewood division, to be renamed Brewood & Penkridge West. The remainder of the Penkridge division would be named Penkridge East & Huntington.

79 We received six objections to this proposed boundary from local residents in Penkridge and a further objection from Penkridge Parish Council, which proposed an alternative boundary that would ensure the town remained united in a single division. South Staffordshire District Council and Stafford MP Jeremy Lefroy also opposed the draft recommendation.

80 The County Council also argued against splitting Penkridge, and proposed an alternative boundary – the same as the boundary proposed by Penkridge Parish Council. This partly used existing district ward and parish ward boundaries to unite the town in a single division, although it would require new parish warding arrangements in Penkridge.

81 The County Council stated that its proposed boundary followed the existing parish ward of Gailey. However, the maps included with its submission did not follow the recognised boundary of this parish ward, and excluded an unpopulated area of farmland to the east. Following correspondence with officers at the County Council, it confirmed that its intention was for the boundary to follow the recognised parish ward boundary. We have treated the County Council’s submission accordingly. Its proposals would create a new Penkridge and Brewood divisions having 8% more and 11% fewer electors than the county average by 2016, respectively.

82 We recognise the strength of the arguments for keeping Penkridge united in a single division, as it is clearly a distinct community. However, we are concerned about the levels of electoral equality that would result from the County Council’s proposals.

83 We also received a proposal in this area from the Staffordshire resident. He suggested that the parishes of Dunston and should be added to the County Council’s proposed Brewood division to improve electoral equality.

84 This proposal would result in the Brewood and Penkridge divisions having 6% fewer and 3% more electors than the county average by 2016, respectively. We note that the Brewood division would be geographically large, but consider this is the most appropriate way of providing for good electoral equality while avoiding splitting

13 communities. We have therefore decided to adopt this modification to the boundaries of the Brewood and Penkridge divisions as part of our final recommendations.

85 In the south of the district, our draft recommendations proposed to transfer the parish of from the Wombourne division to the Kinver division in order to provide for improved electoral equality in this area.

86 At Stage Three, we received submissions from the parishes of Lower Penn and Wombourne, reiterating that the two parishes shared community ties and that it would be detrimental to community identity to split them between electoral divisions.

87 However, having considered the matter carefully, we retain the view expressed in our draft recommendations that the Lower Penn parish shares the rural character of the rural parishes within the Kinver division, and that our draft recommendation in this area provides for superior electoral equality to any alternative schemes proposed at either Stage One or Stage Three. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for the divisions of Wombourne and Kinver as final.

88 We did not receive any submissions in relation to our proposals to leave the divisions of Perton, Codsall and Cheslyn Hay, Essington & Great Wyrley unchanged from their existing boundaries. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Stafford Borough

89 Stafford currently comprises nine single-member divisions. Our proposals in this Borough were based on a combination of the County Council’s proposals and an unattributed scheme received at Stage One.

90 We received no objections to our proposed rural divisions of Eccleshall and & . We therefore confirm the boundaries of these two divisions as final.

91 In the Stafford town area, we received four submissions from local residents in the Rowley Park area arguing that the area should not be split between the proposed divisions of Stafford South West and Stafford Central. The County Council and the local resident agreed with this view, proposing an unchanged Stafford West division, stating that areas which ‘comprised distinct sub areas’ within the division would be split under our draft recommendations.

92 The County Council also argued that our proposed Stafford North division would be unnecessarily disruptive to community identity. In particular, it argued that it was more appropriate for the town centre to be included in Stafford Central as this would provide for greater ‘synergy of representation’, as issues affecting the town centre such as traffic management tend to disproportionately impact on the communities in Stafford Central.

93 As an alternative, the County Council proposed a scheme which was also endorsed by the Staffordshire resident. This was similar to its Stage One proposal, with a section of Coton ward transferring from Stafford Central to Stafford North. However, it also proposed to transfer a recently constructed residential estate from Stafford South East to Stafford Central to provide for improved electoral equality.

14

94 While this estate lies further south than the remainder of the division and is somewhat separate from it, its proponents argued for its inclusion on the grounds that it is linked to the Stafford Central division by Queensville Bridge. The County Council also noted that, as a recently constructed estate, it was of a different character to properties to its south and did not necessarily share strong community ties with the neighbouring area.

95 Under the County Council’s proposed boundaries the divisions of Stafford North, Stafford Central, Stafford West and Stafford South East would have 6% fewer, 7% more, 8% more and 9% more electors than the county average by 2016, respectively. Stafford Trent Valley division would also gain small sections of Baswich and Weeping Cross wards, so that it would have an equal number of electors to the county average by 2016.

96 On balance, we accept the arguments of the County Council and the local resident that their alternative proposals provide clearer boundaries with better respect for community identities, while also enabling satisfactory electoral equality. We have therefore decided to adopt the County Council’s revised proposals in full in relation to the divisions of Stafford West, Stafford Central, Stafford North, Stafford South East and Stafford Trent Valley as part of our final recommendations.

97 We received six objections to our draft proposal to divide the borough ward of Walton between the divisions of Stone Urban and Stone Rural.

98 Stone Town Council and a local resident argued that the parish of Stone should remain united in a single division, while Stone Constituency Labour Party, a local town councillor and two local residents argued that dividing Walton would split a natural and longstanding community.

99 Stone Constituency Labour Party proposed that an alternative area, named as Aston Lodge Park, should instead be transferred into the Stone Rural division to provide for electoral equality. It argued that, as a relatively new and self-contained residential development lying to the east of the railway line, this area had weaker community ties to its neighbours than the north of Walton and so transferring it into a rural division would be less disruptive to community identity.

100 The proposal from the Stone Constituency Labour Party would transfer approximately 1,400 electors from the St Michael’s ward of Stone Urban to Stone Rural. This would result in the divisions of Stone Rural and Stone Urban having 4% more and 2% more electors than the county average by 2016, respectively.

101 On balance, we have decided against this modification as part of our final recommendations. The parish of Stone has too large an electorate for it to be wholly contained within a single division. To achieve reasonable levels of electoral equality some part of Stone has to be transferred to a rural division.

102 We were not persuaded by the evidence provided that exchanging Aston Lodge Park for the area of Walton, as proposed in our draft recommendations, would better reflect community identities and interests in Stone. We have therefore decided

15 to confirm our draft recommendations for the divisions of Stone Urban and Stone Rural as final.

Staffordshire Moorlands District

103 Staffordshire Moorlands District currently has seven single-member divisions. Our draft recommendations were entirely based on the Stage One proposal of the County Council.

104 At Stage Three, we received a submission from a local resident who argued that we should reconsider our decision not to unite the three wards of Cheadle in a single electoral division. Staffordshire County Labour Party concurred with this view.

105 We noted the consequential effects of uniting Cheadle town in a single division. We consider it would be detrimental to community identity and effective and convenient local government in neighbouring divisions. In particular, parish, which the resident proposes to include in the Churnet Valley division, is geographically separate from this division and has no direct road access to it. We have therefore not adopted the local resident’s proposal in this area as part of our final recommendations.

106 We received no further submissions in respect of our draft recommendations in this area of the county. We therefore confirm them as final.

107 With respect to consequential parish warding arrangements, Leek Town Council requested that if the proposed division boundaries were confirmed as final, each parish ward in Leek be represented by two councillors each. We have accepted this proposal, which is detailed in the parish electoral arrangements section below.

Tamworth Borough

108 Tamworth Borough currently has six single-member divisions. Owing to the allocation of members in a 62-member council, it is somewhat over-represented by comparison with other districts in Staffordshire.

109 Our draft recommendations for Tamworth Borough were entirely based on proposals made by the County Council at Stage One.

110 We received no submissions relating to Tamworth Borough at Stage Three. We have therefore decided to confirm the draft recommendations for Tamworth Borough as final.

Conclusions

111 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 29–34, and illustrated on a number of large maps we have produced. The outline map which accompanies this report shows our final recommendations for the whole authority. It also shows a number of boxes for which we have produced more detailed maps. These maps are also available to be viewed on our website. Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2010 and 2016 electorate figures. 16 Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations 2010 2016 Number of councillors 62 62 Number of electoral divisions 60 60 Average number of electors per councillor 10,652 10,947 Number of divisions with a variance more 7 4 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Final recommendation Staffordshire County Council should comprise 62 councillors serving 60 divisions, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

112 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

113 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, Staffordshire County Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

114 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Branston, Horninglow & Eton, , Penkridge, Stone, and Leek.

115 At the draft recommendations stage, our proposals required a consequential parish warding arrangement for Stretton parish. As we have recommended an alternative boundary in this area, consequential parish warding for this parish is no longer necessary.

116 Horninglow & Eton parish is currently represented by 15 councillors, divided into two wards: Horninglow (nine parish councillors) and Eton (six parish councillors). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the

17 statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Horninglow & Eton parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Horninglow & Eton Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Horninglow (returning seven members), Eton (returning six members), and Tutbury Road (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5a.

117 Branston parish is currently unwarded and is represented by 11 parish councillors. As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Branston parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Branston Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Branston (returning nine members) and Henhurst (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5b.

118 Burntwood Town Council is currently represented by 22 councillors, divided into seven parish wards: All Saints (three parish councillors), Boney Hay (three parish councillors), Burntwood Central (three parish councillors), Chase Terrace (four parish councillors), Chasetown (three parish councillors), Highfield (three parish councillors) and Summerfield (three parish councillors). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Burntwood parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Burntwood Town Council should comprise 22 councillors, as at present, representing nine wards: All Saints (returning three members), Boney Hay (returning three members), Burntwood Green (returning one member), Burntwood Central (returning three members), Chase Terrace (returning four members), Chasetown (returning three members), Highfield (returning one member), Rake Hill (returning one member) and Summerfield (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 5c.

119 Penkridge Parish Council is currently represented by 15 councillors, divided into four wards: North East (four parish councillors), South East (six parish councillors), West (four parish councillors) and Gailey (one parish councillor). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Penkridge parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

18

Final recommendation Penkridge Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Gailey (returning one member), Levedale (returning one member), North East (returning four members), South East (returning six members) and West (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 8.

120 Stone Town Council is currently represented by 18 councillors, divided into three parish wards: St Michael’s (five parish councillors), Stonefield & Christchurch (five parish councillors) and Walton (eight parish councillors). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Stone parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Stone Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: St Michael’s (returning five members), Stonefield & Christchurch (returning five members), Walton North (returning three members) and Walton South (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2a.

121 Seighford parish is currently represented by eight councillors, divided into three parish wards: Derrington (four parish councillors), Great Bridgeford (three parish councillors) and Seighford (one parish councillor). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Seighford parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Seighford Parish Council should comprise eight councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Derrington (returning four members), Great Bridgeford (returning three members) and Seighford (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 4.

122 Leek Town Council is currently represented by 12 councillors, divided into four parish wards: Leek North (three parish councillors), Leek South (three parish councillors), Leek East (three parish councillors) and Leek West (three parish councillors). As a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are proposing revised electoral arrangements for Leek parish to reflect our proposed division arrangements in this area.

Final recommendation Leek Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing six wards: Birchall (returning two members), Leek East (returning two members), Leek North (returning two members), Leek South (returning two members), Leek West (returning two members) and Leekbrook (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 2b.

19 20 3 What happens next?

123 We have now completed our review of electoral arrangements for Staffordshire County Council. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements which will come into force at the next elections for Staffordshire County Council in 2013.

21 22 4 Mapping Final recommendations for Staffordshire

124 The following maps illustrate our proposed division boundaries for Staffordshire County Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed division boundaries for Staffordshire.

 Sheet 2, Map 2a illustrates the proposed divisions in the north of Stafford Borough.

 Sheet 2, Map 2b illustrates the proposed divisions in the north-west of Staffordshire Moorlands District.

 Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed divisions in the east of Newcastle- under-Lyme Borough.

 Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed divisions in the south of Stafford Borough.

 Sheet 5, Map 5a illustrates the proposed divisions in the east of East Staffordshire Borough.

 Sheet 5, Map 5b illustrates the proposed divisions in the south east of East Staffordshire Borough.

 Sheet 5, Map 5c illustrates the proposed divisions in the west of Lichfield District.

 Sheet 6, Map 6 illustrates the proposed divisions in the north of Tamworth Borough.

 Sheet 7, Map 7a illustrates the proposed divisions in the south of Tamworth Borough.

 Sheet 7, Map 7b illustrates the proposed divisions in the north east of Cannock Chase District.

 Sheet 8, Map 8 illustrates the proposed divisions in the north of South Staffordshire District.

23 Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the County Council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

24 Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council, the number, names and boundaries of parish wards and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible

25 electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories, a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or county council

26 Appendix B

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Consultation (2008) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 November 2008, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

Table B1: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning We comply with this process for a policy (including legislation) or service from requirement. the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what We comply with this questions, in what timescale and for what purpose. requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise We comply with this as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at requirement. most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

Documents should be made widely available, with the We comply with this fullest use of electronic means (though not to the requirement. exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered We consult at the start of the responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks review and on our Final should be the standard minimum period for a consultation. recommendations. Our consultation stages are a minimum total of 16 weeks.

27

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly We comply with this analysed, and the results made widely available, with an requirement. account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, We comply with this designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the requirement. lessons are disseminated.

28 Appendix C

Table C1: Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2010) (2016) councillor % councillor % Divisions in Cannock Chase District Brereton & 1 1 9,487 9,487 -11% 9,972 9,972 -9% Ravenhill Cannock Town 2 1 11,223 11,223 5% 11,801 11,801 8% Centre Cannock 3 1 10,805 10,805 1% 10,829 10,829 -1% Villages 4 1 10,941 10,941 3% 11,020 11,020 1% Etching Hill & 5 1 9,480 9,480 -11% 9,366 9,366 -14% Heath & 6 2 23,150 11,575 9% 23,797 11,899 9% Rawnsley Divisions in East Staffordshire Borough 7 Burton Tower 1 10,656 10,656 0% 10,944 10,944 0%

8 Burton Town 1 11,538 11,538 8% 12,030 12,030 10%

9 Burton Trent 1 10,654 10,654 0% 10,951 10,951 0%

10 Dove 1 10,107 10,107 -5% 10,107 10,107 -8%

29 Table C1 (Cont): Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Division name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2010) electors per from average (2016) electors per from average councillor % councillor % Horninglow & 11 1 11,378 11,378 7% 11,459 11,459 5% Stretton Needwood 12 1 11,429 11,429 7% 11,943 11,943 9% Forest 13 Uttoxeter Rural 1 10,075 10,075 -5% 10,496 10,496 -4%

14 Uttoxeter Town 1 10,234 10,234 -4% 10,361 10,361 -5% Divisions in Lichfield District Burntwood 15 1 10,087 10,087 -5% 9,999 9,999 -9% North Burntwood 16 1 9,585 9,585 -10% 9,570 9,570 -13% South Lichfield City 17 1 10,678 10,678 0% 10,732 10,732 -2% North Lichfield City 18 1 10,311 10,311 -3% 11,069 11,069 1% South Lichfield Rural 19 1 9,690 9,690 -9% 9,725 9,725 -11% East Lichfield Rural 20 1 9,092 9,092 -15% 10,191 10,191 -7% North Lichfield Rural 21 1 9,741 9,741 -9% 9,853 9,853 -10% South Lichfield Rural 22 1 9,852 9,852 -8% 10,574 10,574 -3% West

30 Table C1 (Cont): Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Division name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2010) electors per from average (2016) electors per from average councillor % councillor % Divisions in Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Audley & 23 1 11,779 11,779 11% 12,327 12,327 13% Chesterton 24 Bradwell, Porthill & 1 11,006 11,006 3% 11,415 11,415 4% Wolstanton Keele, Knutton 25 1 9,521 9,521 -11% 10,346 10,346 -5% & Silverdale 26 Kidsgrove 1 11,502 11,502 8% 11,585 11,585 6% May Bank & 27 1 11,000 11,000 3% 11,472 11,472 5% Cross Heath 28 Newcastle Rural 1 10,175 10,175 -4% 10,831 10,831 -1% Newcastle 29 1 11,291 11,291 6% 11,987 11,987 9% South Talke & Red 30 1 11,664 11,664 10% 12,067 12,067 10% Street Westlands & 31 1 9,927 9,927 -7% 10,357 10,357 -5% Thistleberry Divisions in South Staffordshire District 32 Brewood 1 10,291 10,291 -3% 10,309 10,309 -6%

33 Cheslyn Hay, Essington & 2 23,013 11,507 8% 23,610 11,805 8% Great Wyrley

31 Table C1 (Cont): Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Division name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2010) electors per from average (2016) electors per from average councillor % councillor % 34 Codsall 1 10,056 10,056 -6% 10,341 10,341 -6%

35 Kinver 1 10,303 10,303 -3% 10,397 10,397 -5%

36 Penkridge 1 10,580 10,580 -1% 11,311 11,311 3%

37 Perton 1 10,312 10,312 -3% 10,443 10,443 -5%

38 Wombourne 1 11,203 11,203 5% 11,409 11,409 4% Divisions in Stafford Borough 39 Eccleshall 1 10,275 10,275 -4% 10,718 10,718 -2% Gnosall & 40 1 11,719 11,719 10% 12,076 12,076 10% Doxey 41 Stafford Central 1 10,505 10,505 -1% 11,730 11,730 7%

42 Stafford North 1 10,224 10,224 -4% 10,283 10,283 -6% Stafford South 43 1 11,709 11,709 10% 11,882 11,882 9% East Stafford Trent 44 1 10,936 10,936 3% 10,968 10,968 0% Valley 45 Stafford West 1 11,936 11,936 12% 11,784 11,784 8%

46 Stone Rural 1 11,257 11,257 6% 11,421 11,421 4%

32 Table C1 (cont): Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2010) (2016) councillor % councillor % 47 Stone Urban 1 11,057 11,057 4% 11,146 11,146 2% Divisions in Staffordshire Moorlands District 48 North 1 10,047 10,047 -6% 10,392 10,392 -5% Biddulph South 49 1 11,431 11,431 7% 11,478 11,478 5% & Endon 50 1 11,024 11,024 3% 10,812 10,812 -1% Cheadle & 51 1 11,441 11,441 7% 11,802 11,802 8% Checkley 52 Churnet Valley 1 11,656 11,656 9% 11,519 11,519 5%

53 Leek Rural 1 11,495 11,495 8% 11,639 11,639 6%

54 Leek South 1 11,406 11,406 7% 11,784 11,784 8% Divisions in Tamworth Borough 55 Amington 1 9,760 9,760 -8% 9,861 9,861 -10%

56 Bolebridge 1 9,665 9,665 -9% 9,867 9,867 -10%

57 Perrycrofts 1 9,525 9,525 -11% 9,803 9,803 -10%

58 Stonydelph 1 9,765 9,765 -8% 9,994 9,994 -9%

59 Watling North 1 9,585 9,585 -10% 10,056 10,056 -8%

33 Table C1 (cont): Final recommendations for Staffordshire County Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2010) (2016) councillor % councillor % 60 Watling South 1 10,164 10,164 -5% 10,705 10,705 -2% Totals 62 660,398 – – 678,716 – – Averages – – 10,652 – – 10,947 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Staffordshire County Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

34