New electoral arrangements for Pendle Council Final recommendations December 2019 Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Pendle? 2 Our proposals for Pendle 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 7 Draft recommendations consultation 8 Final recommendations 8 West Craven 9 Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west 12 Nelson 16 Colne and the rural east 18 Conclusions 21 Summary of electoral arrangements 21 Parish electoral arrangements 21 What happens next? 25 Equalities 27 Appendices 29 Appendix A 29 Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council 29 Appendix B 31 Outline map 31 Appendix C 32 Submissions received 32 Appendix D 33 Glossary and abbreviations 33

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Pendle?

7 We are conducting a review of Pendle Borough Council (‘the Council’) at the request of the Council in 2018. Furthermore, the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Pendle. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Pendle are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Pendle

9 Pendle should be represented by 33 councillors, 16 fewer than there are now.

10 Pendle should have 12 wards, eight fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Pendle.

How will the recommendations affect you?

13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Pendle. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 February 2019 Number of councillors decided 26 February 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 6 May 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 30 July 2019 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 7 October 2019 forming final recommendations 17 December 2019 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2019 2024 Electorate of Pendle 66,626 68,836 Number of councillors 49 33 Average number of electors per 1,360 2,086 councillor

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Pendle will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 3% by 2024.

23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

Number of councillors 24 Pendle Borough Council currently has 49 councillors. We looked at all the evidence provided during the initial stages of the review and concluded that decreasing this number by 16 will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 33 councillors.

26 As Pendle Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years), there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

27 We received submissions during both stages of consultation that proposed we recommend a one-councillor ward for the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth and Old Laund Booth, in the south-west of the borough. This would have resulted in a council size of 34 councillors. We also received a proposal from a local resident during the consultation on our draft recommendations that suggested we adopt a two-councillor ward and single-councillor ward in the same area. This proposal would maintain a council size of 33 but would depart from the uniform pattern of three- councillor wards.

28 As explained in detail in paragraphs 59–60, we have been persuaded that a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards will not reflect community identities in the south-west of the borough. We have consequently changed our recommendations in this area. We have decided to adopt the local resident’s proposal for a two-councillor ward and single-councillor ward, moving away from the presumption that the borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We consider that this proposal will best reflect our statutory criteria.

29 We also received several submissions that supported the decision to reduce the number of councillors on the Council from 49 to 33. One submission suggested the Council be represented by 20 councillors but did not provide any detailed evidence as how this number would allow the Council to carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively. We have thus based our final recommendations on a 33- member council.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c). 6

Ward boundaries consultation 30 We received 33 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included four full borough-wide proposals. Two were received from the Council (the second received after a change of the Council’s political control), one from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party and one from a local resident. We also received proposals for minor variations to the second Council scheme from the Pendle Liberal Democrats and two borough councillors. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments in particular areas of the borough. These included the Barnoldswick Branch of Pendle Labour Party, which provided an alternative warding pattern in the West Craven area, and the Labour Party Colne Co-ordination Committee, which submitted a pattern of wards for the Colne area.

31 The first Council scheme and the Pendle Constituency Labour Party’s scheme both proposed a uniform pattern of 11 three-councillor wards across Pendle. Conversely, the second Council scheme and the variations of that scheme proposed a pattern of 11 three-councillor wards with an additional single-councillor ward in the south-west of the borough. We carefully considered these proposals and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards would generally result in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and largely used clearly identifiable boundaries.

32 The borough-wide scheme proposed by a local resident suggested a warding pattern made up one-, two-, three- and four-councillor wards. We consider four- councillor wards do not aid effective and convenient local government and potentially dilute the accountability of councillors to the electorate, so we did not adopt these wards as part of our draft recommendations. We also considered the evidence for either single- or two-councillor wards was not persuasive enough for us to depart from the presumption that the borough have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We therefore did not adopt any of these proposals as part of our draft recommendations. We did nonetheless consider the three-councillor wards proposed by the local resident where appropriate.

33 Our draft recommendations were predominantly based on the second Council scheme, which we considered best reflected our statutory criteria. However, we developed our own warding pattern in the south-west of the borough in order to create a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards.

34 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Pendle helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

7

35 Our draft recommendations were for 11 three-councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations provided for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation 36 We received 74 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included borough-wide responses from the Council and the Conservative Group. The rest of the submissions related to specific areas of the borough, where we received strong, well-evidenced objections to our draft recommendations for the south-west of the borough, specifically with regard to our proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward.

37 We have therefore proposed changes to the warding arrangements in this area as part of our final recommendations. As a consequence, we have moved away from a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, creating a two-councillor Brierfield West & Reedley ward, and a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward.

38 Based on evidence received during consultation, we have also changed the names of wards in West Craven, Nelson and Colne to better reflect community identities.

Final recommendations 39 Our final recommendations are for 10 three-councillor wards, one two-councillor ward and one single-councillor ward. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

40 The tables and maps on pages 9–19 detail our final recommendations for each area of Pendle. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

41 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 8

West Craven

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Barnoldswick 3 7% Earby & Coates 3 9%

Barnoldswick and Earby & Coates 42 We received 12 submissions that related directly to our proposed wards in the West Craven area. Three of these submissions argued against our proposal to place the Coates area of Barnoldswick parish in a ward with Earby (and the adjoining parishes), arguing this would not effectively represent local communities.

43 We carefully considered these submissions, and while we note the requests made for the Coates area to remain in a Barnoldswick ward, a three-councillor ward comprising entirety of Barnoldswick parish would result in an electoral variance of 34%. On the basis that local electors should have a vote of broadly equal weight, we

9

consider this too significant an electoral variance and have not adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

44 One of these submissions proposed that Foulridge parish, rather that the Coates area, could be placed in a ward with the parishes of Earby, Salterforth and Kelbrook & Sough. It was argued that the A56 provides strong road access between these communities.

45 We have carefully considered these proposals but note that, given the reduction in the number of councillors and wards across the borough, it is inevitable that part of Barnoldswick parish will need to be in a ward that includes adjoining communities. The proposal to place Foulridge parish in a ward with the parishes of Earby, Salterforth and Kelbrook & Sough would not solve this issue as it would not take account of the Coates area which cannot be placed in Barnoldswick ward given the need to ensure good electoral equality. Therefore, we have not adopted this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

46 The Council, the Conservative Group and Pendle Liberal Democrats all supported our ward boundaries in the area. However, along with several other submissions, they opposed the ward names of West Craven East and West Craven West. A majority of these submissions suggested that these wards be renamed Coates & Earby (or Earby & Coates) and Barnoldswick respectively, with the Pendle Liberal Democrats stating these proposed names would be more representative of the communities that reside within each ward. We are persuaded by the evidence received and have decided to rename these wards as part of our final recommendations. We are recommending the ward name of Earby & Coates, given that Earby is the most populated parish within the ward.

47 Barnoldswick Town Council and the Pendle Liberal Democrats both opposed the parish warding arrangements proposed as part of our draft recommendations for the parish of Barnoldswick. The two submissions stated that the Craven parish ward would be too large with 11 parish councillors, with both suggesting identical revised parish warding arrangements. We have adopted these proposed changes, which will provide for effective and convenient local government for Barnoldswick Town Council. The electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick parish are outlined on page 22 of this report.

48 A local resident, Councillor Carter, Earby Town Council and Kelbrook & Sough Parish Council suggested that a property, which is located on the very edge of the Laneshaw Bridge parish boundary along Skipton Old Road, be incorporated into Kelbrook & Sough parish. We have no power to change external parish boundaries as part of our review. A community governance review conducted by the Council would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing this issue.

10

49 We also received a submission from a local resident that asked for a property, which straddles the boundary between Pendle borough and Craven district, be wholly contained in one local authority. Another local resident stated the whole of the West Craven area should be within Craven district. However, changing the external boundaries between Pendle and Craven falls outside the scope of this electoral review.

11

Barrowford, Brierfield, Reedley Hallows and the rural west

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Barrowford & Pendleside 3 -1% Brierfield West & Reedley 2 10% Fence & Higham 1 -6%

Barrowford & Pendleside 50 We received four submissions that referred to our proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward. One of these came from Roughlee Parish Council, which supported our proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward.

12

51 A local resident and Old Laund Booth Parish Council both argued that our proposed Barrowford & Pendleside ward was too large and diverse, stating that the urban Barrowford area is distinct from the adjoining rural parishes. The local resident preferred that the existing wards remain in place. However, due to the reduction in the number of councillors for the borough, it is an inevitable consequence that we need to amend the allocation of councillors for wards as well as amending existing ward boundaries. The submission also asked for Higherford village to be placed in Blacko parish. However, changes to external parish boundaries falls outside the scope of this electoral review.

52 Old Laund Booth Parish Council suggested Barrowford parish be warded separately from the rural parishes, thereby allowing the parishes of Old Laund Booth and Higham with Close Booth to be placed in a ward with the rest of the rural parishes. However, a three-councillor ward comprising just Barrowford parish would result in an electoral variance of -23%, which we consider too high to recommend. It would not be possible to accept this proposal and ensure even, reasonable electoral equality.

53 During our consultation on the warding arrangements for Pendle, we received a submission from the Pendle Constituency Labour Party that proposed a Barrowford & Pendleside ward that resulted in a variance of 13%. We chose not to adopt this proposal when formulating our draft recommendations, as we considered Blacko parish has a far stronger affiliation with the western parishes. We also considered the electoral variance was too high and not supported by the evidence received. A local resident submitted an alternative version of the Pendle Constituency Labour Party’s scheme, which provided for a Barrowford & Pendleside ward that produced an electoral variance of 9%. This was achieved by transferring further electors from Barrowford parish into a Nelson East ward. This proposal would provide for good electoral equality.

54 We therefore examined this proposal when formulating our final recommendations. However, we considered that evidence received was not strong enough to transfer several hundred electors around the A6068 and Victoria Park into a Nelson town ward. In this area, we consider that the M65 motorway and the Barrowford and Nelson parish boundary represent stronger boundaries. Furthermore, we maintain the view that placing Blacko parish in a ward with the eastern parishes would not effectively reflect local community identities and interests.

55 Therefore, in consideration of all the evidence received in relation to this ward, we confirm our draft recommendation Barrowford & Pendleside ward as final.

13

Brierfield West & Reedley and Fence & Higham 56 We received numerous submissions that objected to our draft recommendations for the parishes of Brierfield, Reedley, Old Laund Booth and Higham with West Close Booth. These included strong, well-evidenced representations from the Liberal Democrats, Old Laund Booth Parish Council and Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council. It was argued that our proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward, which combined the parishes of Old Laund Booth and Higham with West Close Booth with the urban parishes of Brierfield and Reedley, did not take account of community identity and local geography, with the M65 motorway forming a barrier between communities.

57 Several of these submissions supported the alternative proposal made by the Council, which proposed that the parishes of Higham with West Close Booth and Old Laund Booth form a single-councillor ward, increasing the council size by one from 33 to 34. We have decided not to adopt this proposal as adopting a 34-councillor warding pattern would have notable consequential effects on electoral equality in other wards across the borough, specifically in the West Craven area.

58 The Conservative Group also objected to our proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward, instead proposing a Pendle View ward, along with significant modifications to wards in the town of Nelson. However, we did not adopt this proposal as we considered the community evidence provided was not strong enough to warrant such substantial changes to our draft recommendations.

59 We also received a submission from a local resident who suggested that our proposed Brierfield West, Fence & Higham ward be split into a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward and a two-councillor Brierfield West ward. After carefully considering the submissions in relation to this area, we are persuaded that sufficient evidence has been received to move away from the presumption of a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, and that a two-councillor and single-councillor warding arrangement in the south-west of the borough is justified on the grounds of community identities and interests.

60 We therefore recommend a two-councillor Brierfield West & Reedley ward and a single-councillor Fence & Higham ward, which we consider will better reflect the distinct community identities of the two rural parishes and the more densely populated areas of western Brierfield and Reedley Hallows parish. This proposal will also provide for reasonable electoral equality, where our final Brierfield West & Reedley ward will have an electoral variance of 10%, while our Fence & Higham ward will have an electoral variance of -4% by 2024.

61 One local resident asked that a property, which is located on the very edge of the Reedley Hallows parish boundary along Greenhead Lane, be incorporated into Old Laund Booth parish. As previously mentioned in this report, we have no powers

14

to amend external parish boundaries and a community governance review conducted by the Council would be the most appropriate starting point for addressing this issue.

15

Nelson

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Bradley 3 -6% Brierfield East & Clover Hill 3 -3% Marsden & Southfield 3 -2% Whitefield & Walverden 3 3%

Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden 62 The submissions we received for this area proposed significantly different boundaries. The Council suggested various amendments between our proposed Bradley, Brierfield East & Clover Hill and Whitefield & Walverden wards. However, no community evidence was provided to substantiate these changes. We have therefore not adopted these proposals as part of our final recommendations.

63 The Conservative Group proposed significantly different boundaries in Nelson, proposing a Brierfield & Nelson West ward, a Cloverhill & Walverden ward and a Bradley & Whitefield ward. However, as stated in paragraph 58, we considered the community evidence provided was not strong enough to warrant substantial changes to our draft recommendations. Furthermore, the Conservative Group’s Cloverhill & Walverden ward resulted in an electoral variance of 16%. Given we have an obligation to ensure that electors in Pendle have a vote of broadly equal weight, we

16

consider that this variance will not provide for sufficient electoral equality. Consequently, we have not adopted these proposals as part of our final recommendations.

64 Councillor Ali argued that because our proposed Brierfield East and Clover Hill ward would fall under Nelson and Brierfield parishes, it would possibly lead to confusion with a potential risk of under representation and neglect of local issues. However, Councillor Ali did not provide for an alternative warding pattern for this area.

65 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final. We consider that these three wards represent the best balance of our statutory criteria.

Marsden & Southfield 66 We received several submissions concerning our proposed Southfield & Marsden ward. These included a submission from Councillor McGowan. A majority of these submissions argued that the proposed ward name was unsuitable, stating that Marsden, as the more historic and recognisable part of the ward, should come before Southfield in the ward name. Based on the submissions received, we consider there is enough evidence to support a name change that better reflects community identity.

67 Two submissions agreed with the proposal to place the areas of Marsden and Southfield into a single ward, while one submission opposed the decision, stating they should be separately warded. However, no alternative warding pattern that would adequately reflect our statutory criteria was provided. Therefore, except for the name change outlined above, we are confirming our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

17

Colne and the rural east

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Boulsworth & Foulridge 3 3% Vivary Bridge 3 -9% Waterside & Horsfield 3 -6%

Boulsworth & Foulridge 68 We received a submission from a local resident which opposed combining Foulridge parish in a ward with the existing Boulsworth ward, emphasising the distinct identity of the parish. However, given that Pendle elects a third of its councillors each year, there is a presumption in law that it will have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. Therefore, it is necessary to place Foulridge in a ward alongside the adjoining rural parishes of Laneshaw Bridge and Trawden Forest in order to achieve good electoral equality and maintain a three-councillor warding pattern. In this case, we considered the evidence provided was not compelling

18

enough to move away from this pattern of wards, and we have therefore decided to confirm our proposed Boulsworth & Foulridge ward as final.

69 The Pendle Liberal Democrats opposed the parish warding arrangements for the Colne parish that were proposed as part of our draft recommendations – specifically in the Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have adopted the changes proposed, which we consider will provide for effective and convenient local government for Colne Town Council. These changes are detailed further on page 22 of this report.

70 We received no other submissions that related directly to our proposed Boulsworth & Foulridge ward. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Vivary Bridge 71 We received one submission from a local resident that stated that the disused railway line would represent a better boundary between Vivary Bridge and Barrowford & Pendleside wards. We are of the view that ward boundaries should follow the existing parish boundaries in this area. If the ward boundary followed the disused railway line, it would require the creation of a new parish ward. We consider this would not ensure effective and convenient local government, especially given the lack of community evidence to justify such a change. We therefore did not adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

72 No further submissions were received in regard to our proposed Vivary Bridge ward, so we therefore confirm the draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Waterside & Horsfield 73 We have changed the name of our proposed Waterside ward to Waterside & Horsfield based on submissions received. The Council, the Conservative Group and the Liberal Democrats all supported this name change, with the Liberal Democrats providing good evidence that the proposed ward will include the Colne cricket ground, which provided the origin of the Horsfield name. Renaming this ward will better reflect the communities that reside within it, so we have adopted it as part of our final recommendations. Our final Waterside & Horsfield ward will an electoral variance of -6% by 2024.

19

20

Conclusions 74 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Pendle, referencing the 2019 and 2024 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2019 2024 Number of councillors 33 33 Number of electoral wards 12 12 Average number of electors per councillor 2,019 2,086 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 0 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Final recommendations Pendle Borough Council should be made up of 33 councillors serving 12 wards, representing one single-councillor ward, one two-councillor ward and 10 three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Pendle Borough Council. You can also view our final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements 75 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 wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

21

76 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Pendle Borough 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.

77 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick, Colne and Nelson.

78 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Barnoldswick parish.

Final recommendations Barnoldswick Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Coates 3 Barnoldswick North 4 Barnoldswick South 7

79 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Colne parish.

Final recommendations Colne Town Council should comprise 17 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central 2 Lidgett 2 Vivary Bridge 7 Waterside East 2 Waterside West 4

80 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Nelson parish. The parish warding arrangements in Nelson parish are affected both by our proposed borough wards and by Lancashire county divisions. The parish wards for Nelson parish proposed as part of our draft recommendations did not fully consider the impact of the county divisions in Nelson. We are therefore proposing amended parish warding arrangements for Nelson parish at this stage to reflect both the new borough wards and the existing county divisions.

22

Final recommendations Nelson Town Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bradley 6 Clover Hill 2 Marsden East 1 Marsden West 1 Southfield 6 Walverden 5 Whitefield 3

23

24

What happens next? 81 We have now completed our review of Pendle Borough Council. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2020.

25

26

Equalities 82 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

27

28

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Pendle Borough Council Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Barrowford & 1 3 5,974 1,991 -1% 6,190 2,063 -1% Pendleside 2 Barnoldswick 3 6,571 2,190 8% 6,711 2,237 7% Boulsworth & 3 3 6,128 2,043 1% 6,430 2,143 3% Foulridge 4 Bradley 3 5,835 1,945 -4% 5,912 1,971 -6% Brierfield East & 5 3 5,860 1,953 -3% 6,062 2,021 -3% Clover Hill Brierfield West & 6 2 4,270 2,135 6% 4,573 2,287 10% Reedley 7 Earby & Coates 3 6,525 2,175 8% 6,830 2,277 9%

8 Fence & Higham 1 1,943 1,943 -4% 1,956 1,956 -6% Marsden & 9 3 5,982 1,994 -1% 6,133 2,044 -2% Southfield 10 Vivary Bridge 3 5,495 1,832 -9% 5,714 1,905 -9% Waterside & 11 3 5,634 1,878 -7% 5,898 1,966 -6% Horsfield

29

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Whitefield & 12 3 6,409 2,136 6% 6,427 2,142 3% Walverden Totals 33 66,626 – – 68,836 – –

Averages – – 2,019 – – 2,086 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Pendle Borough Council.

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

30

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north- west/lancashire/pendle

31

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/lancashire/pendle

Local Authority

• Pendle Borough Council

Political Groups

• Pendle Conservative Group • Pendle Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor Z. Ali (Pendle Borough Council) • Councillor C. Carter (Pendle Borough Council) • Councillor N. McGowan (Pendle Borough Council)

Parish and Town Councils

• Barnoldswick Town Council • Earby Town Council • Higham with West Close Booth Parish Council • Kelbrook & Sough Parish Council • Old Laund Booth Parish Council (x2) • Roughlee Parish Council

Local Residents

• 61 local residents

32

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

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 inequality 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

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

33

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

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 borough, 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 borough council

34

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 conducting boundary, electoral and Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE