sign in sign up
<<
Home , Barthomley, Bridgemere, Crewe, Crewe Green, Haslington, Hunsterson

SOUTH LABOUR PARTY BRANCH

PARISH BOUNDARY REVIEW. PAPER A – CURRENT GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

Question 3 in the review asks if current governance arrangements (i) reflect local identities and interests; and (ii) provide an effective and convenient local government.

Response:

It has been many years since boundaries were reviewed, and this review is long promised, long overdue, and welcome. During that time, considerable developments have taken place within the area, many of them overlapping existing boundaries. The case for addressing those anomalies is irresistible, if local community governance has any meaning.

In most cases, boundaries should be adjusted, and a list will be provided of minor adjustments which we propose, to tidy up boundaries. In a few cases, although we agree with the Council that support should not be given to change for change’s sake, we believe that development has been so substantial that it require more significant revision.

Question 4 : Are you able to provide any examples of community governance arrangements, within , which have enabled successful opportunities for active involvement, effective adoption of responsibilities and working together effectively?

Response:

In a Borough area so widespread and diverse, we favour a policy of devolving functions and responsibilities wherever possible to a more local level. Parish (and town) councils should be encouraged to take this on, and given adequate financial support to enable it. They should also be asked to consider consortia for service provision. Prior to reorganisation, similar joint working arrangements were in place between the then borough councils of Cheshire and worked well, whilst taking care to maintain local democracy. Although clearly on a different level, a similar arrangement between neighbouring could work for the benefit of all, providing appropriate services, including those devolved from the Borough Council, at far less cost than if they were run separately by each parish council.

This is not a suggestion that parish councils should merge into larger, less local, units. Consortia can exist between separate groups of partner councils for different functions.

PARISH BOUNDARIES – PAPER B – MAJOR ISSUES

Many parish boundaries are based on features like old water courses which have long since been diverted or overtaken by development.

The first document identified a series of minor changes. This one addresses issues where more significant steps need to be taken to ensure that parishes reflect a community of interests.

1. Includes Haslington, Oakhanger, Winterley. All in Haslington borough ward. 1.1 Close Lane. Oakhanger parish ward has around 275 properties at the last count and is growing with new development. All but 50 are in Close Lane and streets off it. This area clearly has more affinity with than Haslington. The boundary could be redrawn in such a way that it transfers them to Alsager. The boundary could be drawn down the M6 but it may be simpler to transfer the whole of the Oakhanger parish ward to Alsager. 1.2 Winterley – Hollyfields and Elton Lane are currently split between the Winterley ward of Haslington and Wheelock. Suggest the boundary is redrawn to take all the area south and east of the A534 (plus Ashley Close) into Winterley.

2. Weston and Basford Includes the two parishes, and the villages of Weston, Basford, Englesea Brook, Stowford (which fall into the Haslington borough ward), Wychwood Park and Wychwood Village (in the borough ward). However, the Wychwood Park development is split between this parish and Hough and Chorlton. Weston and Basford council has 5 seats for Weston Village, 3 for Weston Wychwood, and 3 for Basford. 2.1 The boundary between Weston and Chorlton meanders across the Wychwood Park development, roughly following the line of a small watercourse, shown on the map as “Mere Gutter” and further downstream “Basford Brook”. Polling district 1GFR is in the Weston parish and comprises roughly 105 properties within Wychwood Park (plus Wychwood Village). Polling district 1GG3 is in the Chorlton parish and comprises roughly 370 properties. Although the boundary is clearly defined, there must be a case for unifying the two into either Weston or Chorlton, on the grounds of a common interest. However, community of interest suggests a case for a separate parish council for Wychwood Park and Village. There might also be other options involving a much larger parish council for the area in general. 2.2 Basford. There are 119 properties in the small settlement of Basford, but its area is quite extensive and includes Basford Hall sidings and the areas allocated for employment purposes on either side of the . Two properties on the junction of Newcastle Road with Back Lane and Casey Lane (Marilyn and Brook Cottage) are split between Chorlton and Basford. They should be transferred into Chorlton. There must be a strong case for abolishing the parish of Basford and allocating that part of it east of the railway to Weston. That part to the west of the railway would go mainly to Shavington but Casey Lane, and that part of Back Lane south of the main settlement, could be transferred to Chorlton.

3. Shavington-cum-Gresty Includes the two parish wards of Shavington Village (which forms the Shavington borough ward), and Gresty Brook (which falls into the South borough ward). 3.1 Separate minor proposals have been made to adjust the boundary between Shavington- cum-Gresty and Rope parishes. However, and taken together, there is a strong case for all of the parish of Rope south of the railway line to be transferred to Shavington, which would mean a further 11 properties (Rope Hall, etc.) in Rope Lane and Eastern Road. 3.2 Similarly, a number of separate minor proposals are concerned with the boundary between Shavington and Wybunbury. But the “Shavington Park” development (Sable Road, etc.) suggests that consideration should be given to a boundary running completely down the centre of Newcastle Road from Blakelow Farm to the boundary with Hough. This, together with Dig Lane and Stock Lane, could form a separate parish ward – probably of Shavington but conceivably of Wybunbury parish.

4. Rope Rope parish lies wholly within the borough ward of Willaston and Rope. 4.1 See above for points to be considered for part of the parish south of the railway line. 4.2 If that proposal is agreed, it might be that Willaston might be extended to take in Rope Hall and its associated properties. 4.3 The boundary crosses through the area at the end of Tricketts Lane occupied by industrial premises. This area, as far as the upper reaches of Wellsgreen Brook (running down from Rope Hall), should be transferred to Willaston. 4.4 There is clearly a significant decision to be taken concerning Rope parish in general, and the part north of the railway ought to be a part of , either as a separate parish ward or combined with the Wells Green parish ward of Wistaston.

5. Wistaston Includes the parish wards of St Marys, Wells Green and Wistaston Green. All of them fall into the borough ward of Wistaston. 5.1 Ennerdale Road. Nos. 11-29, plus part of nos.7 & 9, together with the whole of Keswick Close and Ullswater Avenue, is effectively an exclave of Crewe. On the face of it, they should be taken into Wistaston (and the boundary aligned with the rear of nos.20-36 Bowness Road), although there is a case for all the area west of Capesthorne Avenue to be taken as a whole and allocated to one or the other. 5.2 Wistaston Avenue is an exclave of Wistaston, separated from the rest of the parish. Despite the name, it would be better transferred into Crewe. The only alternative would be to divide Readesdale Avenue by transferring nos. 1 3 and 5 into Wistaston. 5.3 Dane Bank Avenue. From Valley Road to the two Roman Catholic schools, the boundary takes a line to include all the properties in Crewe. However, from that point up to Vine Tree Primary School, it takes a line which is probably the original boundary before houses were built. At the very least, it should ensure that the whole of Dane Bank Avenue is united within Crewe, so nos.74a to 66 should be transferred to Crewe, together with those properties currently split – 64 Dane Bank Avenue, 1 Trinity Close, and a small corner of the Vine Tree Primary School and its playing field. 5.4 College Fields. However, that would mean that the whole of the “College Fields” development is then separated from the rest of Wistaston parish. There are significant decisions to be taken about this area in general. The Wistaston Brook forms the boundary further upstream and there is a strong case to be made for it to be used downstream – either to include the College Fields estate wholly within Crewe, or to go on to include the Woodside estate, or even further - all of which are likely to be progressively more controversial. However, what is clear is that the status quo is not tenable.

6. Part of the parish council of and district 6.1 Pyms Lane. The boundary runs across the land owned by Motors to the west of Sunnybank Road, occupied by its showroom “CW1 House” and large staff car parks. No residential properties are included but the company would probably welcome some rationalisation, moving all this area to Crewe. 6.2 Road. The northern part of the parish is physically separated by the railway and it would make sense to transfer all this land out of Woolstanwood and run a boundary down the Middlewich Road as far as Brassey Bank bridge. Land to the east could be transferred to Crewe, and to the west to Leighton. 6.3 That would leave a substantial number of properties in the area south of the railway line but Woolstanwood is currently linked to the parish council of Minshull Vernon and district, and it is questionable how much community of interest there is. On balance we would favour merging it into Crewe, but the next best alternative would be to make into a parish ward of Wistaston, with which it is currently linked for Borough electoral purposes.

7. Willaston Includes the parish wards of Willaston Village and Willaston North. See Wistaston and Rope for proposals relating to Willaston parish. In addition : 7.1 Blakelow. This part of Willaston parish is now separated from the rest by the A500. It comprises Blakelow, the Cottage and the 4 new houses at Horseshoe Court. No properties are split and it could go into (or Wybunbury). 7.2 Conversely, Old Newcastle Road and Blakelow Drive (22 properties) are now separated from the rest of Stapeley by the A500 and should go into Willaston. I have reason to believe that this would not be unpopular with parish councillors concerned.

8. Wybunbury See section 4 re Dig Lane to Shavington Park; section 7 re Blakelow, etc.

PARISH BOUNDARY ANOMALIES. PAPER C – MINOR POINTS

The following are the very obvious, mainly small, anomalies that ought to be non-controversial. Many of them are exclaves i.e. a portion of a territory (e.g. a parish) that is geographically separated from the main part by surrounding alien territory. Boundaries have been taken from the Cheshire East Council mapping website at https://maps.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ce/webmapping.

1. Haslington Includes Haslington, Oakhanger, and Winterley. All in Haslington borough ward. 1.1 Herbert Street - Woodside House and Woodside Stables are only accessible from Crewe so could be transferred into Crewe. However, the rural nature of the premises suggests there might be a common interest with Haslington. Bradeley Hall Farm (in Haslington) is adjacent, although not connected. Residents’ opinion (if any) would be the deciding factor. 1.2 Sydney Road – the boundary bisects the Brethren’s Meeting House, the whole of which should be moved in to Crewe, with the boundary changed to the eastern boundary of this property. 1.3 Fields Farm, Sydney Road. Currently in Haslington, but only accessible from Sydney Road. However, the area sits more naturally with either or Haslington. Also note that, to the south of the farm, a further stretch of open land between the Haslington bypass (A534) and Sydney Road lies within Crewe Green parish. The two should sit together and it is suggested that on balance the whole of this area be transferred to Haslington. This means that the boundary between Crewe Green and Haslington should be moved to run from the point at which it currently crosses the bypass down the middle of that road to the roundabout. 1.4 Elton Lane is bisected by the A534 so there are 7 properties on the western end which no are no longer connected to the eastern end. However, they are linked via Clay Lane to the rest of the parish and there is no obvious alternative parish in which to place them.

2. Wholly in Haslington borough ward. 2.1 Radway Green. The boundary between Barthomley and Alsager straggles through the old factory and Business Park. It doesn’t make sense but there are no domestic properties involved. On balance it would probably make more sense to transfer it all into Barthomley (the old station was known as “Radway Green and Barthomley”). Local opinion (if any) would be the major consideration. Other than that, the boundaries are generally well defined and still appropriate.

3. Crewe Green Wholly in Haslington borough ward. 3.1 Stanier Close, etc. The boundary should be changed to run down the middle of Sydney Road from the point at which it currently crosses that road, to the Crewe Green roundabout, then along the western side of the roundabout, to the point at which it currently crosses University Way. The effect of this is to transfer into Crewe nos.11-21 Stanier Close, plus those parts of nos.6 7 9 and 10 Stanier Close which are currently split between Crewe and Crewe Green; nos. 1 2 4 6 and 8 Stephenson Drive, plus that part of no.10 Stephenson Drive currently split; nos. 3 11 15 28 30 and 32 Nigel Gresley Close, plus those parts of nos. 5 7 9 and 26 Nigel Gresley Close currently split; nos.259 to 265 Sydney Road; part of no.8 Renaissance Way currently split. 3.2 University Way. Adjust to run from the above point down the middle of University Way until it meets up again with the existing boundary just south of the “Duke of Gloucester”. This transfers a small part of “Tollgate Barn” from Crewe to Crewe Green.

4. Hough and Chorlton Both parishes are within the Wybunbury borough ward. Chorlton includes a substantial part of the Wychwood Park development, discussed in a separate document. 4.1 Newcastle Road. There are 9 properties, from “Brooklyn” to “Skipton Hulme”, registered within Chorlton but their rear gardens are largely within Basford. Adjust the boundary to include the whole of the property in Chorlton.

5. Shavington-cum-Gresty Includes the two parish wards of Shavington Village (which forms the Shavington borough ward), and Gresty Brook (which falls into the Crewe South borough ward). 5.1 The boundary with Crewe town across follows the line of an old watercourse but could be more relevantly adjusted to follow the railway chord which connects the West Coast Main Line to the Crewe- line. This would transfer an area (currently unpopulated) out of Crewe. It does not include any residential properties but the Gresty Bridge Depot, and other railway premises (including Freightliner) on either side of Gresty Road. The following proposals (5.2 thru 5.5) are considered to be minor amendments but would be overtaken by the major proposal (see separate document) to transfer all of Rope parish south of the railway line into Shavington-cum-Gresty. 5.2 Gresty Lane. Brook Farm is within Shavington parish but only accessible via Gresty Lane which is in Rope parish. It would make more sense to run the boundary along the railway line as far as the Swill Brook. 5.3 Northfield Place. Nos.11, 13, 15, 17 and 19a are all located in Shavington but parts of their gardens are in Rope. These should be included wholly in Shavington. 5.4 Broomhall Drive. Nos. 17 29 31 and 33 are split and should be wholly within Shavington. However, all of this development should really be in one parish, and Shavington is the obvious one. So in addition to the above, this would mean the transfer of the whole of Ellis Close and Williams Drive. With the remainder of Broomhall Drive, this appears to be about 48 properties. 5.5 Rope Farm, Rope Lane. This is the farm between the school and the bypass. The farm, plus 4 properties named Rope Farm Barns, are registered in the Rope parish but the boundary cuts across them. If there are no major changes between Shavington and Rope, the boundary should be adjusted to include all of the properties in Rope. The following proposals (5.6 thru 5.9) are also considered to be minor amendments but would be overtaken by the major proposal (see separate document) to create a separate parish ward, south of Newcastle Road. 5.6 The boundary runs through no.300 Newcastle Road and nos. 1a and 1b Dig Lane. It should run to the south of no.300 to include it wholly in Shavington, and to the east of 1a and 1b to include them wholly in Wybunbury. 5.7 Huntersfield is split and the only access to it is from Shavington. So nos.16-20 should be transferred to Shavington. 5.8 Stock Lane. Although nos.20 and 24 Stock Lane are within Wybunbury parish, no.22 is in Shavington and should be transferred to Wybunbury. Also, no.1 Stock Lane (aka Bestwood House) should be transferred from Shavington to Wybunbury to keep the whole of Stock Lane in the same parish. 5.9 The same applies to the larger “Shavington Park” development to the east of Huntersfield and totalling around 300 properties eventually.

6. Rope Rope parish lies wholly within the borough ward of Willaston and Rope. 6.1 See above for points to be considered for the part of the parish south of the railway line. 6.2 The boundary crosses through the area at the end of Tricketts Lane occupied by industrial premises. This area, as far as the upper reaches of Wellsgreen Brook (running down from Rope Hall), should be transferred to Willaston. There is clearly a significant decision to be taken concerning Rope parish in general. However, the following are points of detail, listed at this stage in case the parish of Rope remains. 6.3 Rope Lane. At present, nos. 22a and 24a lie within Wistaston, nos. 24 and 26 in Rope. As the present boundary crosses Rope Lane at a point between nos.26 and 28, nos. 24 and 26 should go into Wistaston. 6.4 Laidon Avenue. Suggest nos.85 87 and 89 be transferred into Rope from Wistaston.

7. Wistaston Includes the parish wards of St Marys, Wells Green and Wistaston Green. All of them fall into the borough ward of Wistaston. 7.1 Wistaston Road, Willaston. Suggest nos.158 and 160 are transferred into Willaston, so that all properties on this road are in the same parish. 7.2 Holly Place has nos. 5 to 9, and part of 10, within Willaston but only accessible from Wistaston, to which they should be transferred. At the rear of nos.10 and 11, part of the garden of 8 John Gresty Drive should be transferred from Wistaston to Willaston. 7.3 Gerards Gardens. Similarly, nos.5 to 9 and part of no.4, are within Willaston but only accessible from Wistaston, to which they should be transferred; the garden of no.308 Crewe Road is also split and the whole of the property should be in Willaston. However, whilst this area should all be in the same parish, it could be all part of Willaston. 7.4 Crewe Road. No.351 is split and should be wholly within Wistaston. 7.5 Buckley Mill House, Middlewich Road. North of this property, the boundary deviates from the line of the Valley Brook to follow what appears to be an old watercourse. No houses are involved but the land probably belongs to Buckley Mill House and it should continue along the Gresty Brook. 7.6 Manor Court. Nos.1 and 2 Manor Cottages front on to Manor Court and should be transferred into Crewe. Also note that boundary should follow Gresty Brook upstream immediately from the point south of no.6 Manor Court. There could be an argument to keep the boundary on Gresty Brook and therefore to transfer the Manor plus Wistaston Mill, etc., but historical associations make that less compelling.

8. Willaston Includes the parish wards of Willaston Village and Willaston North. See Wistaston and Rope for items relating to Willaston parish. 8.1 Cheerbrook Road. No 86 and “Birch Knoll” are mainly in Willaston but partly in Stapeley and if the changes described elsewhere are agreed, the boundary would go down the middle of the A500, across Cheerbrook Roundabout and then down the middle of Newcastle Road as far as the point where it turns north. This would also bring the whole of no.12 Burgess Close into Stapeley. However, note that if the boundary between Willaston and ran along Cheer Brook from Newcastle Road to the railway line, it would be more easily defined. 8.2 For some reason, the boundary deviates from Cheer Brook to put No.181 Crewe Road into Willaston, separate from its neighbours in Nantwich. This should be corrected.

9. Wybunbury See elsewhere for proposals affecting Wybunbury (Blakelow, and Dig Lane, etc.)

10. Doddington and District Includes Blakenhall, , Checkley, Doddington, , and Lea. 10.1 Hunsterson House is mainly in Hunsterson parish but a good part of the property lies within Hatherton, so the boundary should be changed to include it all within Hunsterson.

Proposal 1.1 (existing)

Proposal 1.1 (proposed)

Proposal 1.2 (existing)

Proposal 1.2 (proposed)

Proposal 2.1 (existing)

Proposal 2.1 (proposed)

Proposal 2.2 (existing)

Proposal 2.2 (proposed)

Proposals 3.1, 4.2 and 4.3(existing)

Proposal 3.1, 4.2 and 4.3 (proposed)

Proposal 3.2 (existing)

Proposal 3.2 (proposed)

Proposal 4.4 (existing)

Proposal 4.4 (proposed)

Proposal 5.1 (existing)

Proposal 5.1 (proposed)

Proposal 5.2 (existing) Proposal 5.2 (proposed)

Proposals 5.3 and 5.4 (existing) Proposals 5.3 and 5.4 (proposed)

Proposals 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3(existing) Proposals 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3(proposed)

Proposals 7.1 and 7.2 (existing)

Proposals 7.1 and 7.2 (proposed)