Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich in Cheshire

Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich in Cheshire

Further electoral review

June 2007

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

Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Electoral Commission 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 03114G

2 Contents

What is the Boundary Committee for England? 5

Summary 7

1 Introduction 13

2 Current electoral arrangements 17

3 Draft recommendations 21

4 Responses to consultation 23

5 Analysis and final recommendations 25 Electorate figures 25 Council size 26 Electoral equality 27 General analysis 29 Warding arrangements 29 Acton, Audlem, Bunbury, Englesea, Haslington, Minshull, 30 Peckforton, Wrenbury and Wybunbury wards Barony Weaver, Birchin and Wellington wards 32 Alexandra, Leighton, St Barnabas, St Mary’s, Shavington, 33 Wells Green, Willaston and Wistaston Green wards Coppenhall, Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St John’s, 37 Valley and Waldron wards Conclusions 40 Parish electoral arrangements 40

6 What happens next? 45

7 Mapping 47

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 49

B Code of practice on written consultation 53

3 4 What is the Boundary Committee for England?

The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is responsible for conducting reviews as directed by the Electoral Commission or the Secretary of State.

Members of the Committee are:

Pamela Gordon (Chair) Robin Gray Joan Jones CBE Ann M. Kelly Professor Colin Mellors

Director:

Archie Gall

When conducting reviews our aim is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor in an area is as nearly as possible the same, taking into account local circumstances. We can recommend changes to ward boundaries, the number of councillors and ward names. We can also recommend changes to the electoral arrangements of parish and town councils.

5 6 Summary

The Boundary Committee for England is the body responsible for conducting electoral reviews of local authorities. A further electoral review of Crewe & Nantwich was undertaken to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the borough. It aimed to ensure that the number of voters represented by each borough councillor is approximately the same. The Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee to undertake this review on 12 May 2005.

Current electoral arrangements

Under the existing arrangements, seven of the existing 27 wards currently have more than 10% more electors than the borough average. By 2009 two wards would have more than 30% more electors than the borough average. Englesea ward would have 42% more electors and Wybunbury ward would have 75% more electors than the borough average.

This review was conducted in four stages:

Stage Stage starts Description One 6 September 2005 Submission of proposals to us Two 13 December 2005 Our analysis and deliberation Three 7 November 2006 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them Four 13 February 2007 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations

Our draft recommendations were principally based on the Borough Council’s Stage One submission, subject to a number of minor amendments. We were unable to fully consider the Conservative Group’s proposals as they were based on an alternative council size that we did not accept. In the rural area we adopted the Borough Council’s proposals without amendment, while in Nantwich and Crewe we proposed minor amendments to improve electoral equality and strengthen ward boundaries.

Responses to consultation

During Stage Three we received 16 submissions. The Borough Council put forward revised proposals based on a council size of 56 members. Its comments were supported by the Conservative and Independent groups. The Labour and Liberal Democrat groups expressed general support for our draft recommendations, subject to minor amendments. Two councillors and two local residents expressed general support for the draft recommendations, subject to minor amendments. One local resident expressed support for our draft recommendations. Finally, three parish councils and a local resident made comments about parish electoral arrangements.

7 Analysis and final recommendations

Electorate figures

The Borough Council is predicting electorate growth of 6% over five years from 2004. This will be spread across the borough. We note the methodology used to forecast the electorate in 2009 follows the model used by Cheshire County Council Research and Intelligence Unit. We consider that these estimates remain the best available.

Council size

At Stage One the Borough Council proposed an increase in council size from 56 to 57 councillors. The Conservative Group proposed a council size of 56 but did not put forward any evidence in support of the proposal. Based on the evidence received, we proposed a 57-member council. At Stage Three, the Borough Council requested that we reconsider the proposals for a 56-member council, arguing that an increase in workload as a result of councillors’ ‘member champion’ role had not been realised. It offered very limited additional evidence. Given that the Committee has consulted on a 57-member council, we consider that the Borough Council would have to provide the strongest evidence that its initial proposals were in fact incorrect. The Committee does not consider that the Borough Council has done this. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence put forward at Stage One and Stage Three, we are confirming a council size of 57 members as final.

General analysis

We are confirming our draft recommendations as final, subject to four minor amendments in Crewe, a ward name change and amendments to the parish electoral arrangements in Stapeley & District parish.

What happens next?

All further correspondence on these final recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be sent to the Electoral Commission through the contact details below. The Commission will not make an Order implementing them before 7 August 2007. The information in the representations will be available for public access once the Order has been made.

The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected]

The contact details above should only be used for queries regarding the implementation of these recommendations.

The full report is available to download at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

8 Table 1: Final recommendations for Crewe & Nantwich borough

Ward name Number of Electorate Number of Variance Electorate Number of Variance councillors (2004) electors per from average (2009) electors per from average councillor % councillor % 1 Acton 1 1,494 1,494 -2 1,538 1,538 -5

2 Alexandra 3 4,272 1,424 -6 4,643 1,548 -4

3 Audlem 2 3,234 1,617 6 3,438 1,719 6

Barony 4 3 4,497 1,499 -2 5,027 1,676 4 Weaver

5 Birchin 2 3,026 1,513 -1 3,279 1,640 1

6 Brine Leas 3 4,352 1,451 -5 4,892 1,631 1

7 Bunbury 1 1,593 1,593 5 1,660 1,660 3

8 Delamere 2 2,523 1,262 -17 3,143 1,572 -3

9 Englesea 2 2,311 1,156 -24 3,084 1,542 -5

10 Haslington 3 4,895 1,632 7 5,077 1,692 5

11 Leighton 3 4,913 1,638 8 4,917 1,639 1

12 Maw Green 3 4,703 1,568 3 4,768 1,589 -2

13 Minshull 1 1,430 1,430 -6 1,613 1,613 0

9 Table 1 (continued): Final recommendations for Crewe & Nantwich borough

Rope & Wells 15 2 3,126 1,563 3 3,204 1,602 -1 Green

16 St Barnabas 3 4,298 1,433 -6 4,646 1,549 -4

17 St John’s 3 4,817 1,606 5 4,877 1,626 1

18 St Mary’s 2 3,463 1,732 14 3,481 1,741 8

19 St Michael’s 3 4,705 1,568 3 4,858 1,619 0

20 Shavington 2 3,228 1,614 6 3,287 1,644 2

21 Valley 2 2,972 1,486 -2 3,045 1,523 -6

22 Waldron 3 4,736 1,579 4 4,887 1,629 1

23 Willaston 1 1,703 1,703 12 1,793 1,793 11

Wistaston 24 3 4,693 1,564 3 4,709 1,570 -3 Green

10 Table 1 (continued): Final recommendations for Crewe & Nantwich borough

26 Wybunbury 2 2,798 1,399 -8 3,121 1,561 -3

Totals 57 86,776 – – 92,146 – – Averages – – 1,522 – – 1,617 –

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each 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.

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council.

11 12 1 Introduction

1 This report contains our final recommendations for the electoral arrangements for the borough of Crewe & Nantwich.

2 At its meeting on 12 February 2004 the Electoral Commission agreed that the Boundary Committee should make on-going assessments of electoral variances in all local authorities where the five-year forecast period following a periodic electoral review (PER) has elapsed. More specifically, it was agreed that there should be closer scrutiny where either:

• 30% of wards in an authority had electoral variances of over 10% from the average, or • any single ward had a variance of more than 30% from the average

3 The intention of such scrutiny was to establish the reasons behind the continuing imbalances, to consider likely future trends, and to assess what action, if any, was appropriate to rectify the situation.

4 This is our first review of the electoral arrangements of Crewe & Nantwich. Crewe & Nantwich’s last review was carried out by the Local Government Commission for England (LGCE), which reported to the Secretary of State in June 1998. An electoral change Order implementing the new electoral arrangements was made on 13 November 1998 and the first elections on the new arrangements took place in May 1999.

5 In carrying out our work, the Boundary Committee has to work within a statutory framework.1 This refers to the need to:

• reflect the identities and interests of local communities • secure effective and convenient local government • achieve equality of representation

In addition we are required to work within Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.

6 Details of the legislation under which the review of Crewe & Nantwich is being conducted are set out in a document entitled Guidance and procedural advice for periodic electoral reviews (published by the Electoral Commission in July 2002). This Guidance sets out the approach to the review and will be helpful in both understanding the approach taken by the Boundary Committee for England and in informing comments interested groups and individuals may wish to make about our recommendations.

7 Our task is to make recommendations to the Electoral Commission on the number of councillors who should serve on a council, and the number, boundaries and names of wards. We can also propose changes to the electoral arrangements for any parish and town councils in the borough. We cannot consider changes to the external boundaries of either the borough or of parish areas as part of this review.

1 As set out in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI 2001 No. 3962). 13

8 The broad objective of an electoral review is to achieve, as far as possible, equal representation across the borough as a whole, i.e. that all councillors in the local authority represent similar numbers of electors. Schemes which would result in, or retain, an electoral imbalance of over 10% in any ward will have to be fully justified. Any imbalances of 20% or more should only arise in the most exceptional circumstances, and will require the strongest justification.

9 Electoral equality, 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. Accordingly, the objective of an electoral review is to ensure that the number of electors represented by each councillor is, as near as is possible, the same across a borough. In practice, each councillor cannot represent exactly the same number of electors given geographic and other constraints, including the make up and distribution of communities. However, our aim in any review is to recommend wards that are as close to the borough average as possible in terms of the number of electors per councillor, while also taking account of evidence in relation to community identity and effective and convenient local government.

10 We are not prescriptive about council size and acknowledge that there are valid reasons for variations between local authorities. However, we believe that any proposals relating to council size, whether these are for an increase, a reduction, or the retention of the existing size, should be supported by strong evidence and arguments. Indeed, we believe that consideration of the appropriate council size is the starting point for our reviews and whatever size of council is proposed to us should be developed and argued in the context of the authority’s internal political management structures, put in place following the Local Government Act 2000. It should also reflect the changing role of councillors in the new structure.

11 As indicated in its Guidance, the Electoral Commission requires the decision on council size to be based on an overall view about what is right for the particular authority and not just by addressing any imbalances in small areas of the authority by simply adding or removing councillors from these areas. While we will consider ways of achieving the correct allocation of councillors between, say, a number of towns in an authority or between rural and urban areas, our starting point must always be that the recommended council size reflects the authority’s optimum political management arrangements and best provides for convenient and effective local government and that there is evidence for this.

12 In addition, we do not accept that an increase or decrease in the electorate of the authority should automatically result in a consequent increase or decrease in the number of councillors. Similarly, we do not accept that changes should be made to the size of a council simply to make it more consistent with the size of neighbouring or similarly sized authorities; the circumstances of one authority may be very different from that of another. We will seek to ensure that our recommended council size recognises all the factors and achieves a good allocation of councillors across the borough.

13 Where multi-member wards are proposed, we believe that the number of councillors to be returned from each ward should not exceed three, other than in very exceptional circumstances. Numbers in excess of three could result in an

14 unacceptable dilution of accountability to the electorate and we have not, to date, prescribed any wards with more than three councillors.

14 The review was conducted in four stages (see Table 2).

Table 2: Stages of the review

15 Stage One began on 6 September 2005, when we wrote to Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified Cheshire Police Authority, the Local Government Association, the Cheshire Association of Local Councils, parish and town councils in the borough, Members of Parliament with constituency interests in the borough, Members of the European Parliament for the North West Region and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and invited Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of representations, the end of Stage One, was 12 December 2005.

16 During Stage Two we considered all the submissions received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.

17 Stage Three began on 7 November 2006 with the publication of the report Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich in Cheshire, and ended on 12 February 2007.

18 During Stage Four we reconsidered the draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation, decided whether to modify them, and now submit final recommendations to the Electoral Commission. It is now for the Commission to accept, modify or reject our final recommendations. If the Commission accepts the recommendations, with or without modification, it will make an electoral changes Order. The Commission will determine when any changes come into effect.

Equal opportunities

19 In preparing this report the Boundary Committee has had regard to the general duty set out in section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful racial discrimination • promote equality of opportunity • promote good relations between people of different racial groups

15 National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads

20 The Boundary Committee has also had regard to:

• Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as inserted by section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

• Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB.

• Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by section 97 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads.

16 2 Current electoral arrangements

21 The borough of Crewe & Nantwich covers an area of some 43,000 hectares. It has two main urban centres – the industrial town of Crewe and the market town of Nantwich. Crewe owes much of its history to the railway industry and remains a major rail interchange with services to many parts of the country. Tourism is important for the area. Upper Weaver Valley has little villages, picturesque canals and rolling plains, while the town of Nantwich has both Elizabethan and Georgian listed buildings. The borough is served by a number of important road links, including the M6. It comprises 41 parishes and the unparished area of Crewe.

22 The electorate of the borough is 86,776 (December 2004). The Borough Council currently has 56 members who are elected from 27 wards. There are seven single- member wards, 11 two-member wards and nine three-member wards. The borough’s average number of electors per councillor is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the borough by the total number of councillors representing them on the council. At present, each councillor represents a borough average of 1,550 electors (86,776 divided by 56), which the Borough Council forecasts will increase to 1,645 by the year 2009 if the present number of councillors is maintained (92,146 divided by 56).

23 During the last review of Crewe & Nantwich the Borough Council forecast there would be an increase of approximately 2% from 82,173 to 84,103 electors between 1997 and 2002. However, electorate growth since that time has resulted in a significant amount of electoral inequality between wards, notably in Englesea and Wybunbury wards. To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards, we calculated the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each ward varies from the borough average in percentage terms.

24 Data from the December 2004 electoral register showed that under these arrangements electoral equality across the borough met the criteria that the Electoral Commission agreed would warrant further investigation. The number of electors per councillor in seven of the 27 wards (26%) varies by more than 10% from the borough average. The worst imbalance is in Wybunbury ward where the councillor represents 55% more electors than the borough average. Having noted that this level of electoral inequality is unlikely to improve, the Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee to undertake a review of the electoral arrangements of Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council on 12 May 2005.

17 Table 3: Existing electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich borough

2 Alexandra 3 4,272 1,424 -8 4,643 1,548 -6

3 Audlem 2 3,008 1,504 -3 3,183 1,592 -3

Barony 4 3 4,497 1,499 -3 5,027 1,676 2 Weaver

5 Birchin 2 3,197 1,599 3 3,450 1,725 5

6 Bunbury 1 1,722 1,722 11 1,789 1,789 9

7 Coppenhall 2 3,019 1,510 -3 3,025 1,513 -8

8 Delamere 2 3,042 1,521 -2 3,224 1,612 -2

9 Englesea 1 1,774 1,774 14 2,333 2,333 42

10 Grosvenor 2 2,451 1,226 -21 3,040 1,520 -8

11 Haslington 3 4,895 1,632 5 5,077 1,692 3

12 Leighton 3 4,913 1,638 6 4,917 1,639 0

Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich borough

14 Minshull 1 1,430 1,430 -8 1,613 1,613 -2

15 Peckforton 1 1,522 1,522 -2 1,600 1,600 -3

16 St Barnabas 3 4,302 1,434 -7 4,701 1,567 -5

17 St John’s 3 3,814 1,271 -18 3,872 1,291 -22

18 St Mary’s 2 3,276 1,638 6 3,293 1,647 0

19 Shavington 2 3,228 1,614 4 3,287 1,644 0

20 Valley 2 3,012 1,506 -3 3,037 1,519 -8

21 Waldron 3 4,736 1,579 2 4,887 1,629 -1

22 Wellington 2 2,721 1,361 -12 2,832 1,416 -14

23 Wells Green 2 3,126 1,563 1 3,204 1,602 -3

24 Willaston 1 1,896 1,896 22 1,981 1,981 20

19 Table 3 (continued): Existing electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich borough

26 Wrenbury 1 1,472 1,472 -5 1,559 1,559 -5

27 Wybunbury 2 4,795 2,398 55 5,761 2,881 75

Totals 56 86,776 – – 92,146 – – Averages – – 1,550 – – 1,645 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council.

20 3 Draft recommendations

25 During Stage One we received five submissions. Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council and Crewe & Nantwich Conservative Group put forward proposals for the whole borough. The Borough Council proposed an increase of one member to 57, while the Conservative Group proposed retaining a council of 56 members. Nantwich Independent Group supported the Conservative Group’s proposals, while the Liberal Democrat Group supported the Borough Council’s proposals. Finally, Hankelow Parish Council expressed concerns over the proposal to move Hankelow Parish into Wybunbury ward. In the light of these representations and evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich in Cheshire.

26 Our draft recommendations were based on a combination of the Borough Council’s proposals and some of our own proposals in order to improve electoral equality and to strengthen ward boundaries, which we considered provided the best balance of the statutory criteria. We proposed that:

• Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council should be served by 57 councillors, one more than at present, representing 26 wards, one fewer than at present • The boundaries of 17 of the existing wards should be modified, while nine wards should retain their existing boundaries and • There should be new warding arrangements for the parishes of Nantwich, Stapeley, Willaston and Wistaston parishes

27 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in three of the 26 wards varying by no more than 10% from the borough average. This level of electoral equality was forecast to improve further, with no wards varying by more than 10% from the average by 2009.

21 22 4 Response to consultation

28 During the consultation on the draft recommendations report, 16 representations were received, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Borough Council. Representations may also be viewed on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council

29 The Borough Council put forward an alternative scheme from its Stage One submission, this time supporting proposals based broadly on the Conservative Group’s Stage One scheme for a 56-member council.

Political groups

30 Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Conservative Group expressed general support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three proposals. Nantwich Independent Group on the Borough Council also expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three proposals. Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Labour Group expressed support for the Council’s Stage One proposals for Willaston, St John’s/Wistaston Green boundary and the original proposals for Grosvenor, Delamere and Coppenhall wards. Crewe & Nantwich Liberal Democrat Group expressed general support for the draft recommendations, but put forward a number of minor amendments. It also objected to a number of the proposals put forward by the Borough Council at Stage Three.

Borough Councillors

31 Councillor Thorley (Grosvenor ward) expressed support for the draft recommendations for Grosvenor, Delamere and Coppenhall wards, but rejected our alternative proposal for a revised St Michael’s ward. Councillor Roberts (Maw Green ward) proposed a minor amendment strengthen the boundary between Maw Green and Delamere ward.

Parish Councils

32 Nantwich Town Council argued that Stapeley Urban parish ward of Stapeley & District Parish Council should be transferred to Nantwich Town Council. Stapeley & District Parish Council put forward a number of ward name changes and changes to the number of parish councillors. Willaston Parish Council put forward general comments about the electoral arrangements in its area.

Other representations

33 Eddisbury Conservative Association expressed support for the Borough Council’s response to our draft recommendations for Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards.

34 A local resident expressed general support for the draft recommendations, but put forward comments about a number of areas where we moved away from the Council's Stage One submission. Another local resident expressed support for St

23 Michael’s ward and rejected the alternative warding patterns on which we had requested local views on. A local resident expressed support for the proposals for Stapeley & District Parish Council, while another argued that Wells Green ward should be renamed Rope & Wells Green ward. Finally, a local resident put forward general comments on the need for electoral reviews.

24 5 Analysis and final recommendations

35 We have now finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich.

36 As described earlier, the prime aim in considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Crewe & Nantwich is to achieve electoral equality. In doing so we have regard to section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended), with the need to:

• secure effective and convenient local government • reflect the identities and interests of local communities • secure the matters in respect of equality of representation referred to in paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972

37 Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 refers to the number of electors per councillor being ‘as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of the district or borough’. In relation to Schedule 11, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also have regard to the desirability of fixing clearly identifiable boundaries and to maintaining local ties.

38 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral equality is unlikely to be attainable. There must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is to keep variances to a minimum.

39 If electoral imbalances are to be minimised, the aim of electoral equality should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should make electoral equality their starting point, and then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. Five-year forecasts of changes in electorate should also be taken into account and we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over this period.

40 The recommendations do not affect county, borough or parish external boundaries, local taxes, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that these recommendations will have an adverse effect on house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Electorate figures

41 As part of the previous review of Crewe & Nantwich borough, the Borough Council forecast an increase in the electorate of 2% between 1997 and 2002. However, between 1997 and the start of this review the electorate has increased by 6%. The Borough Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2009, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 6% from 86,776 to 92,146 over the five-year period from 2004 to 2009. The predicted increase in electorate will be spread across the borough. We note that the methodology used to calculate the

25 estimated electorate in 2009 follows the model used by Cheshire County Council Research and Intelligence Unit, which is based on the average number of electors per dwelling in each polling district and forecast housing completions.

42 We received no other comments on electorate figures during Stage One.

43 We recognise that forecasting electorates is difficult and, having considered the Borough Council’s figures, we accepted that they were the best estimates that could reasonably be made at the time.

44 At Stage Three we received no comments on the Borough Council’s electoral forecasts and therefore remain satisfied that they represent the best estimates currently available.

Council size

45 Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council presently has 56 members. At Stage One the Borough Council proposed a council of 57 members based on workload and the new community leadership role of councillors. It outlined the impact of new political management structures and highlighted members’ time commitments in terms of their leadership role in local communities, through the formation of effective partnerships with other service providers at local level, stating that ‘members are facing increased demands resulting from new political management structures and the need to develop and build upon their representational role’. It concluded that ‘a council size in the order of 56 or 57 members is the optimum’, but that ‘a Council of 57 members would offer the best chance of maintaining as many existing boundaries as possible, and hence maintaining community identity and effective and convenient governance’.

46 At Stage One the Conservative and Independent groups proposed retaining the current council size of 56, but did not put forward any evidence in support this proposal. The Liberal Democrat Group supported the Borough Council’s proposals throughout the borough. We received no other representations regarding council size.

47 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received and considered that the Borough Council had highlighted the substantial demands on members’ time and the wide range of roles that members need to fill, including their leadership roles in local communities, their role as ‘Member Champions’ and their participation in committees and project groups. In addition, we noted that the allocation of councillors between urban and rural areas is better under a council size of 57 than under a council size of 56. We concurred with the Borough Council’s assessment of the increased demands on councillors’ time and therefore, given its evidence and the lack of supporting evidence for retaining a council size of 56, we adopted its proposal to increase council size from 56 to 57.

48 At Stage Three, the Borough Council reverted from its Stage One proposals for a 57-member council to support the existing council of 56 members.

49 The Borough Council stated the 56-member proposal ‘is a fairer reflection of the balance between urban and rural areas’. It also stated that it ‘disagrees with the Committee insofar as the suggestion that there has been an increase in the demands

26 on councillor’s time’, adding that less frequent committee meetings and the delegation of decision-making to officers will have a ‘significant impact upon members’ commitments’. It also stated that its ‘prediction that at least 20% of the Borough Council’s current membership would act as member champions […] has not been established’. It stated that ‘there is little need for day-to-day member input into neighbourhood forums as most of the work is conducted by officers’.

50 It acknowledged that ‘the Committee has taken into account the Borough Council’s statement that the transfer of Premises Licensing from the Magistrates’ Courts to the Borough Council has resulted in greatly increased workload’, but added that ‘once the original transfer and renewal of licenses was completed […] the workload has not proved to be as great as had been expected’. Finally, it stated that improved communication technology has ‘increased the efficiency of members and reduced the time taken in dealing with correspondence and other communication issues’.

51 Other than the Liberal Democrat Group which supported the ‘broad principle of […] a council of 57 members’ no other respondents made specific comments on council size. However, a number of other respondents did express general support for the draft recommendations.

52 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received and note that the Council has decided to depart from its Stage One proposal and request that we reconsider the existing council size. We note the Borough Council’s argument that it does not consider that members’ representational role has been as great as it originally predicted. We also note that it does not consider that members’ role in ‘premises licensing’ has created as much ongoing work as predicted. Finally, we also note the argument that increased technology has reduced the time it takes for members to deal with correspondence and communication.

53 However, we also note that at Stage One, the Borough Council provided broadly the opposite arguments to those provided at Stage Three. In our draft recommendations we considered that it had put forward compelling evidence for an increase in council size which we accepted. In addition, as explained in the draft recommendations report, as a result of adopting the 57-member council, we were unable to fully consider the Conservative Group’s 56-member proposal. As stated in paragraph 51, although no further respondents provided specific comments on council size, they did express general support for our draft recommendations and therefore for a 57-member council.

54 Accordingly, given the evidence received at Stage One, and the support for our draft recommendations, we do not consider that the Borough Council has put forward compelling evidence to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations for a 57-member council. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for a 57-member council as final.

Electoral equality

55 Electoral equality, 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. The Electoral Commission expects the Boundary Committee’s recommendations to provide for high levels of electoral equality, with variances

27 normally well below 10%. Therefore, when making recommendations we will not simply aim for electoral variances of under 10%. Where inadequate justification is provided for specific ward proposals we will look to improve electoral equality seeking to ensure that each councillor represents as close to the same number of electors as is possible, providing this can be achieved without compromising the reflection of the identities and interests of local communities and securing effective and convenient local government. We take the view that any proposals that would result in, or retain, electoral imbalances of over 10% from the average in any ward will have to be fully justified, and evidence provided which would justify such imbalances in terms of community identity or effective and convenient local government. We will rarely recommend wards with electoral variances of 20% or more, and any such variances proposed by local interested parties will require the strongest justification in terms of the other two statutory criteria.

56 At Stage One the Borough Council’s proposals secured good electoral equality, with no ward having a variance of more than 8% from the borough average by 2009, and only four wards having electoral inequality above 5% from the borough average by 2009. Under the Borough Council’s proposals Audlem ward, St Mary’s ward, Valley ward and Willaston ward would respectively have 6% more, 6% more, 6% fewer and 8% more electors than the borough average by 2009.

57 In formulating our draft recommendations and in light of the limited community identity evidence provided, we explored a number of options to further improve electoral equality in these four wards further. We proposed a small amendment to improve electoral equality in Valley and Willaston wards to 4% fewer and 6% more electors than the borough average by 2009, respectively. However, given the strong boundaries used, the levels of electoral equality of neighbouring wards and the size of constituent parishes, we were unable to improve electoral equality in Audlem ward and St Mary’s ward. Due to an amendment to the boundary between St Mary’s and Willaston wards, St Mary’s ward was predicted to have 7% more electors than the borough average by 2009.

58 At Stage Three, as a result of the evidence received, we are proposing a number of minor amendments to strengthen boundaries and reflect community identity. We are transferring 76 electors from St Mary’s Ward to Willaston ward and reverting to the existing boundary between our proposed Rope & Wells Green ward and St Mary’s. As a result of these amendments, the electoral equality in St Mary’s and Willaston wards worsens to 8% more and 11% more electors than the borough average by 2009, while it actually improves in Rope & Wells Green ward to 1% fewer.

59 It should be noted that in the rural area, we have not accepted the Council’s Stage Three proposal to revert to the existing Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards on the basis of the 11% variance that would result in Bunbury ward. Although we are recommending an identical variance in Willaston ward, this was because it secured a significant improvement to the boundary. In Bunbury, we note the objection to our draft recommendations, but do not consider that Council has put forward any compelling evidence to justify this increased variance.

60 The borough average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the borough, 92,146 (by 2009), by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 57 under our draft proposals. Therefore the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 1,617 by 2009.

General analysis

61 At Stage One, the Borough Council put forward a single scheme for the whole borough. As stated above, we were persuaded by its argument for an increase in council size by one member. As the Conservative Group’s proposals were based on a council size of 56, we were unable to fully consider its borough-wide scheme. However, we did examine its proposals to consider any community identity evidence provided.

62 Although the Borough Council’s proposals provided good electoral equality across the borough, we did propose a number of minor amendments in the urban and suburban area of Crewe to further improve electoral equality and ensure access and strong boundaries. We also invited further views regarding the boundary in Nantwich and the centre of Crewe. In the rural area of the borough and in Nantwich, we adopted the Borough Council’s proposals in full. Under our draft recommendations, no ward had a level of electoral inequality more than 7% above the borough average by 2009.

63 At Stage Three, we note the Council has put forward significantly different proposals for a 56-member council, based broadly on the Conservative Group’s Stage One proposals. As stated in the council size section, we do no consider that the Borough Council has put forward compelling evidence to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations for a 57-member council and we are confirming this as final. Therefore, as stated in our draft recommendations in relation to the Conservative Groups proposals, given that the Borough Council’s Stage Three submission is based on a different council size, we have been unable to fully consider them as part of our final recommendations. However, where possible, we have sought to consider any specific community identity argument that it has submitted.

64 We are confirming the majority of our draft recommendations as final, subject to a number of minor boundary amendments which reflect community identity arguments that were received.

65 Having looked at the size and distribution of the electorate, the geography and other characteristics of the area, together with responses received at Stage One and Stage Three, we conclude that the statutory criteria would best be met by our final recommendations.

Warding arrangements

66 For borough warding purposes, the following areas, based on existing wards, are considered in turn:

• Acton, Audlem, Bunbury, Englesea, Haslington, Minshull, Peckforton, Wrenbury and Wybunbury wards (page 30) • Barony Weaver, Birchin and Wellington wards (page 32) • Alexandra, Leighton, St Barnabas, St Mary’s, Shavington, Wells Green, Willaston and Wistaston Green wards (page 33) • Coppenhall, Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St John’s, Valley and Waldron wards (page 37) 29

67 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table 1 (on page 9), and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Acton, Audlem, Bunbury, Englesea, Haslington, Minshull, Peckforton, Wrenbury and Wybunbury wards

68 The rural wards of Acton, Audlem, Bunbury, Englesea, Haslington, Minshull, Peckforton, Wrenbury and Wybunbury are all parished. Table 4 below shows the constituent parts of these wards. Table 3 (pages 18–20) outlines the existing electoral variances for 2004 and the variances which the wards are forecast to have by 2009 under the existing arrangements.

Table 4: Existing arrangements

Ward Constituent areas Councillors Acton The parishes of Acton, Austerson, Coole 1 Pilate, Burland, Hurleston, Stoke, Edleston, Henhull, Baddington, Broomhall and Sound Audlem The parishes of Audlem, Hankelow, 2 Buerton, Dodcott-cum-Wilkesley and Newhall Bunbury The parishes of Alpraham, Bunbury, 1 Calveley and Wardle Englesea The parishes of Basford, Weston, 1 Barthomley and Crewe Green and Oakhanger parish ward of Haslington parish Haslington Haslington Village parish ward and 3 Winterley parish ward of Haslington parish Minshull The parishes of Church Minshull, 1 Cholmondeston, Wettenhall, Poole, Worleston, Aston-juxta-Mondrum, Minshull Vernon and Warmingham and Leighton Rural parish ward of Leighton parish Peckforton The parishes of Bickerton, Bulkeley, 1 Egerton, Cholmondeley, Brindley, Faddiley, Peckforton, Ridley, Haughton, Spurstow and Chorley

30 Table 4 (continued): Existing arrangements

Ward Constituent areas Councillors Wrenbury The parishes of Marbury-cum-Quoisley, 1 Norbury, Wirswall, Wrenbury-cum-Frith and Baddiley Wybunbury The parishes of Stapeley & District, 2 Batherton, Hough, Chorlton, Blakenhall, Checkley cum Wrinehill, Lea, Bridgemere, Doddington, Hunsterson, Hatherton, Wybunbury and Walgherton

69 At Stage One the Borough Council based its proposals in these wards on the existing electoral arrangements, albeit proposing some amendments to improve electoral equality. The Borough Council proposed transferring the parishes of Coole Pilate, Austerson and Baddington from Acton ward to Audlem ward, and Wardle parish from Bunbury ward to Acton ward. This would leave Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards with 5% fewer, 6% more and 3% more electors respectively than the borough average by 2009. The Borough Council also proposed creating a two- member Englesea ward by transferring Chorlton, Blakenhall and Checkley cum Wrinehill parishes from Wybunbury ward. The Liberal Democrat Group supported the Borough Council’s proposals throughout the borough. Neither provided any community identity evidence in support of their proposals in this area.

70 The Conservative and Nantwich Independent groups proposed retaining the boundaries of Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards, but raised no objections to the Borough Council’s proposals for the other rural wards in the borough. They provided very limited community identity evidence to support these proposals. Hankelow Parish Council submitted strong community identity evidence in support of Hankelow parish remaining in Audlem ward.

71 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received and noted that the Borough Council’s proposed Audlem ward would have 6% more electors than the borough average. We therefore adopted the Borough Council’s proposals for Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards as part of our draft recommendations.

72 In the remainder of this area, the Borough Council and Conservative Group proposed retaining the existing Haslington, Minshull, Peckforton and Wrenbury wards. None of these wards would have a variance of more than 5% above the borough average by 2009. We therefore adopted them as part of our draft recommendations.

73 The Borough Council’s proposed minor amendments to Englesea and Wybunbury wards, which would have 5% fewer and 3% fewer electors than the borough average by 2009 respectively. These wards were supported by the Conservative Group; no other respondents raised any objections. We therefore adopted them as part of our draft recommendations.

74 At Stage Three, the Borough Council requested the retention of the existing Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards. It stated that the communities are ‘very active [and] closely knit’, but did not provide any evidence of how these communities are

31 linked. It did not comment on the other rural wards. The Eddisbury Conservative Association and the Borough Council’s Conservative and Independent groups also expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three submission, but did not provide any supporting evidence.

75 The Liberal Democrat Group gave general support for the draft recommendations in the rural area. We received no other comments offering specific support or objections to the rural wards.

76 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the Borough Council’s proposal to retain the existing Acton, Audlem and Bunbury wards. We also note that its proposals would secure some improvement in electoral equality in Acton and Audlem wards (-5% and 6% by 2009 under our draft recommendations, improving to 1% and -2%), but that electoral equality would significantly worsen in Bunbury ward (3% by 2009 under our draft recommendations, going to 11%). In addition to this, we do not consider that it has put forward any strong evidence of what the actual links are between the ‘closely knit’ communities in the area. Therefore, given the lack of community identity evidence to support this proposal and the creation of a Bunbury ward with 11% more electors than the borough average, we do not propose adopting the Borough Council’s proposals and are confirming our draft recommendations for this area as final.

77 Table 1 (starting on page 9) provides details of the electoral variances off our final recommendations for Acton, Audlem, Bunbury, Englesea, Haslington, Minshull, Peckforton, Wrenbury and Wybunbury wards. Our final recommendations are shown on Map 1 and Map 4 accompanying this report.

Barony Weaver, Birchin and Wellington wards

78 Barony Weaver, Birchin and Wellington wards in the town of Nantwich are part of Nantwich parish. Table 5 below shows the constituent parts of these wards. Table 3 (pages 18–20) outlines the existing electoral variances for 2004 and the variances which the wards are forecast to have by 2009 if the existing arrangements were to remain in place.

Table 5: Existing arrangements

Ward Constituent areas Councillors Barony Weaver Barony parish ward and Weaver parish 3 ward of Nantwich parish Birchin Birchin parish ward of Nantwich parish 2 Wellington Wellington parish ward of Nantwich 2 parish

79 At Stage One the Borough Council proposed retaining the existing Barony Weaver ward and proposed transferring part of Birchin ward, into its proposed three- member Brine Leas ward. Under its proposals Barony Weaver, Birchin and Brine Leas wards would have 3% more, 3% more and 1% more electors than the borough average by 2009. Its proposals were supported by the Liberal Democrat Group. Neither proposal put forward community identity evidence in support of its proposals.

80 The Conservative Group, supported by the Nantwich Independent Group, proposed transferring Stapeley Urban into the existing Wellington ward, but objected to the proposal to transfer part of Birchin ward. Neither provided any community identity evidence for this proposal.

81 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that the Borough Council’s proposals in Nantwich secured good electoral equality. However, we did have concerns about the ward boundaries and examined ways in which to strengthen them. Although our options secured improvements, we were concerned that they might not receive local support and therefore requested further evidence from local people. On this basis, we adopted the Borough Council’s proposals in Nantwich as part of our draft recommendations, without amendment.

82 At Stage Three the Borough Council proposed alternative electoral arrangements. However, these were based on a 56-member council and not the 57-member council consulted on in our draft recommendations. Therefore, as stated in the council size section above, we have not been able to consider its proposals fully, but have sought to consider comments about specific boundaries or community identity where appropriate. The Borough Council supported the proposal of transferring the Stapeley Urban parish ward to Brine Leas ward, but objected to the transfer of part of Birchin ward to Brine Leas. It stated that the ‘Birchin ward boundaries have been established for many years and residents are happy with them’. The Borough Council did not provide any further evidence to support its proposals. Eddisbury Conservative Association and the Borough Council’s Conservative Group and Independent groups also expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three submission, but did not provide any supporting evidence.

83 The Liberal Democrat Group gave general support for the draft recommendations in this area. We received no other comments.

84 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received and note the Borough Council’s alternative proposal. We note that this is the same as the Conservative Group’s Stage One proposal. At Stage One we noted that this proposal secured worse levels of electoral equality than the Borough Council’s Stage One submission. We do not consider that the Borough Council has put forward any compelling evidence of community identity to persuade us to move away from our draft recommendations and worsen electoral equality. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

85 Table 1 (starting on page 9) provides details of the electoral variances off our final recommendations for Barony Weaver, Birchin and Brine Leas wards. Our final recommendations are shown on Map 1 and Map 3 accompanying this report.

Alexandra, Leighton, St Barnabas, St Mary’s, Shavington, Wells Green, Willaston and Wistaston Green wards

86 St Mary’s, Shavington, Wells Green and Willaston wards are all parished, while Alexandra, Leighton, St Barnabas and Wistaston Green wards are partly parished. All eight wards are located in the town of Crewe or its suburbs. Table 6, below, shows the constituent parts of these wards. Table 3 (pages 18–20) outlines the

33 existing electoral variances for 2004 and the variances which the wards are forecast to have by 2009 if the existing arrangements were to remain in place.

Table 6: Existing arrangements

Ward Constituent areas Councillors Alexandra Gresty Brook parish ward of Shavington 3 cum Gresty parish and unparished areas Leighton Leighton Urban parish ward of Leighton 3 parish and unparished areas St Barnabas The parish of Woolstanwood and 3 unparished areas St Mary’s Willaston North parish ward of Willaston 2 parish and St Mary’s parish ward of Wistaston parish Shavington The Shavington Village parish ward of 2 Shavington cum Gresty parish Wells Green The parish of Rope and the Wells Green 2 parish ward of Wistaston parish Willaston The Willaston Village parish ward of 1 Willaston parish Wistaston Green The Wistaston Green parish ward of 3 Wistaston parish and unparished areas

87 At Stage One the Borough Council proposed retaining the existing Alexandra, Leighton and Shavington wards. It proposed significant modifications to the remainder of the area. Its proposed St Barnabas, Willaston, St Mary’s, Wells Green and Wistaston Green wards would have 5% fewer, 9% more, 6% more, 2% more and 3% more electors than the borough average by 2009. The Borough Council did not provide any strong community identity evidence in support of its proposals in this area.

88 As stated in paragraph 63 we were unable to fully consider the Conservative Group’s proposals for this area as they were based on a council size of 56. However, where possible we sought to try and consider the very limited evidence of local community links that it provided. Nantwich Independent Group supported the Conservative Group’s proposals in this area, but did not provide any supporting evidence.

89 The Liberal Democrat Group supported the Borough Council’s proposals in this area, but did not provide any strong community identity evidence. No other representations were received regarding these wards.

90 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received and noted the agreement in relation to retaining the existing Alexandra and Shavington wards. These wards secure good levels of electoral equality and have strong boundaries so we adopted them as part of our draft recommendations. We also noted the good level of electoral equality achieved by the Borough Council’s proposed Leighton ward. We did

34 consider the Conservative Group’s comments but were unable to find alternative electoral arrangements that secured good levels of electoral. We therefore adopted the Council’s proposals for Leighton ward as part of our draft recommendations.

91 We considered that the Borough Council’s proposals for St Barnabas and Wells Green wards secured good electoral equality and, given a lack of strong evidence objecting to them, or of viable alternatives, we adopted these wards as part of our draft recommendations.

92 We had concerns about what we considered to be a weak boundary between St Mary’s ward and Willaston ward along Coppice Road. We therefore proposed an amendment to unite all the electors on the north side of Coppice Road in St Mary’s ward, with the boundary following the middle of Coppice Road, acknowledging that this would marginally worsen electoral equality in St Mary’s, while marginally improving it in Willaston ward. We also noted the arguments about a weak boundary between Wells Green and St Mary’s wards, using Nessina Grove. However, we did not consider there was sufficient evidence to justify the resulting 10% variance in St Mary’s ward (under a council size of 57). We therefore adopted the Borough Council’s proposal for St Mary’s and Willaston wards, subject to the amendment along Coppice Road described above.

93 We also had concerns about the lack of access for Christchurch Avenue, Magdalen Court, Sandhurst Avenue, Harrow Close, College Fields and Manor Avenue (40–46 evens) in the Borough Council’s Wistaston Green ward. We therefore proposed an amendment to include these streets in St John’s ward by creating a St John’s parish ward of Wistaston parish. This amendment would have no significant impact on electoral equality.

94 At Stage Three the Borough Council proposed alternative electoral arrangements. However, these were based on its 56-member council and not the 57-member council consulted on in our draft recommendations. Therefore, as stated in the council size section above, we have not been able to consider these proposals fully, but have sought to consider comments about specific boundaries or community identity where appropriate. The Borough Council objected to the proposals to transfer the properties on Nessina Grove and Brookland Avenue from St Mary’s ward to Wells Green ward stating that ‘Crewe Road is a clear distinctive boundary between the two wards’. Eddisbury Conservative Association and the Borough Council’s Conservative and Independent groups also expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three submission, but did not provide any supporting evidence.

95 The Labour Group expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage One proposals for Willaston ward, arguing that ‘this Council tries to avoid boundaries down the middle of roads where possible’. It also objected to our proposals to create a St John’s parish ward of Willaston parish council and transfer this to St John’s ward arguing that ‘the Committee’s proposal was based on inaccurate information regarding the parish boundary’.

96 The Liberal Democrat Group objected to the Borough Council’s Stage Three proposal and stated that it had ‘no objection to the Committee’s proposed changes to the Borough Council’s original submission in the Willaston/St Mary’s area’. It also objected to the proposal to create a St John’s parish ward of Willaston parish council and transfer this to St John’s ward, arguing that ‘some doubt was cast’ on the need to create this parish ward. It added, ‘in any event we do not feel that the need to drive 35 through a few yards of St John’s to reach the remainder of Wistaston Green ward would justify creating a wholly artificial parish council ward’.

97 A local resident objected to the boundary along Coppice Road between St Mary’s and Willaston wards. He stated, ‘One of the guiding principles that the Borough Council has always adopted, so far as is practicable, is that boundaries down the middle of roads, however appealing they may look on a map may create difficulties on the ground. Residents on the both sides of the same road usually have the same interests and issues’. The local resident also objected to our proposals to create a St John’s parish ward of Wistaston parish arguing that our decision was ‘based on inaccurate information’. He added that this would involve the creation of a ‘very small parish ward’ and that ‘surely your cornerstone principle of electoral equality should also be applied to parishes unless unavoidable’. However, he also proposed that if the parish ward were to be kept then it should be renamed College Fields as the area ‘has absolutely no relationship with the former St John’s Church’.

98 Willaston Parish Council stated that it ‘has no objections to the draft recommendations’. A local resident argued that Wells Green ward should be renamed Rope & Wells Green ward to reflect the fact that the whole of Rope parish is within the ward.

99 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that the Labour Group and a local resident object to the use of the centre of Coppice Road as the boundary between St Mary’s and Willaston ward, arguing that such boundaries are avoided in the rest of the borough and that it would be more consistent running along the back of houses. We would concur that the boundaries throughout the borough do generally run along the back of houses. However, the Liberal Democrat Group expressed general support for these wards.

100 Amending this boundary would worsen electoral equality in Willaston ward from 6% to 11%, albeit marginally improving it in St Mary’s ward from 7% to 4%. However, on balance, given the evidence received, we consider these variances are acceptable and are adopting this amendment in order to achieve greater consistency with the boundaries in the rest of the urban area.

101 We also note the limited support and objections to the transfer of Nessina Grove and Brookland Avenue to Wells Green ward. In our draft recommendations we adopted the Borough Council’s amendment to this boundary, as we did not consider there to be sufficient evidence to justify the resulting 10% variance in St Mary’s ward. However, as a result of our amendment to St Mary’s and Willaston wards, we are now able to consider reverting to the existing ward boundary running along the back of the properties on Crewe Road and secure variances of 8% more (in St Mary’s) and 1% fewer (in Wells Green) electors per councillor than the borough average. Therefore, on balance, although it marginally worsens electoral equality, given the strong boundary that this secures we propose reverting to the existing boundary between these two wards.

102 We note that a number of respondents questioned the need to create a St John’s parish ward of Wistaston parish, arguing that the Committee does not have the correct parish boundaries. Indeed, a number of respondents argued that even if these are correct, there is no need for our proposed amendment in order to address issues of access. We have sought clarification from the Borough Council and Ordnance Survey, who both confirmed that the parish boundaries that we have are 36 correct. Therefore, we consider our proposal to create a St John’s parish ward important in order to provide access for the electors in this area into their ward. We do not consider that respondents have provided any compelling evidence to persuade us that this is not the case. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

103 We also note the request of a local resident that Wells Green ward be renamed Rope & Wells Green ward. We agree with the point that the ward contains Rope parish and therefore propose adopting this as part of our final recommendations. Finally, we also note a local resident’s objection to the name St John’s parish ward of Willaston parish and propose adopting his alternative name of College Fields parish ward.

104 Table 1 (starting on page 9) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for Alexandra, Leighton, St Barnabas, St Mary’s, Shavington, Rope & Wells Green, Willaston and Wistaston Green wards. Our final recommendations are shown on Map 1, Map 2 and Map 3 accompanying this report.

Coppenhall, Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St John’s, Valley and Waldron wards

105 Coppenhall, Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St John’s, Valley and Waldron wards in the centre of Crewe are all unparished. Table 3 (pages 18–20) outlines the existing electoral variances for 2004 and the variances which the wards are forecast to have by 2009 if the existing arrangements were to remain in place.

106 At Stage One the Borough Council proposed retaining the existing Waldron ward. However, in the remainder of the area it proposed significant modifications. The Borough Council did not put forward strong community identity evidence in support of its proposals in this area. Its proposed Delamere, St Michael’s, Maw Green, St John’s and Valley wards would have 2%, 1%, 2%, 5% and 6% fewer electors than the borough average respectively, by 2009.

107 As stated in paragraph 63 we were unable to fully consider the Conservative Group’s proposals for this area as they were based on a council size of 56. We noted that the Conservative Group also proposed retaining the existing Waldron ward and proposed the same transfer of electors from Maw Green ward into the existing Delamere ward as the Borough Council. We also noted that it put forward alternative electoral arrangements for the Delamere, Grosvenor and Coppenhall areas. Nantwich Independent Group supported the Conservative Group’s proposals for this area but provided no evidence in support of its proposals.

108 The Liberal Democrat Group supported the Borough Council’s proposals for this area but provided limited evidence and no evidence of strong community identity in support of the Borough Council’s proposals.

109 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received. We noted that the Borough Council’s proposals for Waldron ward and Maw Green ward secured good levels of electoral equality and drew some support from the Conservative Group. We therefore adopted them as part of our draft recommendations. Given the good levels of electoral equality, strong boundaries and absence of any strong community

37 identity evidence opposing them, we adopted the Borough Council’s proposals for St John’s and Valley wards, subject to the boundary amendment between St John’s ward and Wistaston Green ward, described above (paragraph 93). We also proposed a minor amendment to its proposed Valley ward, to improve electoral equality by retaining the existing boundary in the Ruskin Road area.

110 We did, however, express concerns about the Borough Council’s proposals to combine the existing Coppenhall and Grosvenor wards in the centre of Crewe. We therefore considered a number of different options, including an option of combining Grosvenor ward (amended with the Borough Council’s proposed boundary with St Barnabas) with Delamere ward to create a new ward (which we will refer to as ‘St Michael’s’). However, although we considered that this alternative option secured good boundaries and may better reflect local communities than the Borough Council’s proposals, we noted that it worsened electoral equality in the area. Therefore, in the absence of community identity evidence to support such an amendment, we adopted the Borough Council’s proposals for this area, but requested local views on our alternative proposals.

111 At Stage Three the Borough Council proposed alternative electoral arrangements. However, these were based on its 56-member council and not the 57-member council consulted on in our draft recommendations. Therefore, as stated in the council size section above, we have not been able to consider these proposals fully, but have sought to consider comments about specific boundaries or community identity where appropriate. Eddisbury Conservative Association and the Borough Council’s Conservative and Independent groups also expressed support for the Borough Council’s Stage Three submission, but did not provide any supporting evidence.

112 The Borough Council’s Labour Group expressed support for our proposals for St John’s and Valley wards. It also expressed support for our draft recommendations for Grosvenor, Delamere and Coppenhall wards and rejected the alternative proposal on which we had requested local views. It stated that the ‘westward enlargement of the Delamere ward [would take] away its unique character as a ward based evenly around the Town Centre’.

113 The Borough Council’s Liberal Democrat Group stated that ‘the Committee is right to identify that there are some weaknesses to the scheme proposed in this area. This is inevitable given the layout of the town, with railway lines creating such clear boundaries, and the need to achieve good electoral equality’, but added that it considered ‘the proposed St Michael’s ward represents good electoral equality, without prejudicing community identity’. It therefore supported our draft recommendations, and rejected the alternative arrangements that we suggested. The Liberal Democrat Group also expressed concern that Ruskin Road is divided between St John’s and Valley wards, stating that ‘we feel the community identity benefits placing the whole of Ruskin Road in a single ward would outweigh the slight impact on electoral equality’.

114 It also proposed a minor amendment to transfer a small unpopulated area of Delamere ward to Maw Green ward. This would tidy up the boundary and tie it to the railway line. Finally, it proposed transferring a small part of our proposed Delamere ward, between Richard Moon Street and Dunnwoody Way to the proposed St

38 Michael’s ward, arguing that this would improve access for the electors when the area is developed.

115 Councillor Thorley expressed support for our draft recommendations in the Grosvenor ward and rejected the alternative proposal that we put forward in our draft recommendations. This was supported by 31 proforma letters.

116 Councillor Roberts put forward a minor amendment to Maw Green ward to transfer a small unpopulated area from Delamere ward. He proposed tying the boundary to the railway line in order to secure a stronger boundary.

117 A local resident also expressed support for the draft recommendations in the Grosvenor, Delamere and Coppenhall area and rejected our alternative proposal. He stated that ‘merging [Delamere ward] with most of the present Grosvenor ward would mean that its centre of gravity swings to the west, where regeneration and social exclusion are a greater priority’. Finally, the local resident also objected to the division of Ruskin Road between St John’s and Valley wards, arguing that the same ‘principle’ should be applied as he suggested to Coppice Road in Willaston.

118 A local resident expressed support for the draft recommendations for St Michael’s ward, but rejected the alternative proposal put forward in our draft recommendations.

119 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the support for our draft recommendations for St Michael’s and Delamere wards. We also note the strong objections to our alternative proposal. We agree with the view that the alternative proposal would change the focus of the ward and acknowledge that this would not necessarily reflect communities. Therefore, we do not propose adopting this alternative option and have decided to confirm these wards as final, subject to two minor amendments. We note the comments of Councillor Roberts and a local resident regarding the small unpopulated area of Delamere ward. We agree that transferring this area into Maw Green ward provides a stronger boundary, along the railway line, without affecting electoral equality. We have therefore decided to adopt it as part of our final recommendations.

120 We also note the comments of the Liberal Democrat Group and a local resident regarding the division of Ruskin Road between St John’s and Valley wards. We note that transferring this area would worsen the electoral equality in Valley ward from 4% fewer to 6% fewer electors than the borough average by 2009. However, we agree that the division of this road would not provide effective and convenient local government. Therefore, on balance, although this amendment would worsen electoral equality, it provides a stronger boundary and better reflects communities. We have therefore decided to adopt this modification.

121 We received no other comments regarding the wards in this area. We consider that our draft recommendations secured good electoral equality, while reflecting local communities. We are therefore confirming them as final, subject to the amendment referred to previously.

122 Table 1 (starting on page 9) provides details of the electoral variances of our final recommendations for Delamere, Grosvenor, Maw Green, St John’s, St

39 Michael’s, Valley and Waldron wards. Our final recommendations are shown on Map 1 and Map 2 accompanying this report.

Conclusions

123 Table 7 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, comparing them with the current arrangements based on 2004 and 2009 electorate figures.

Table 7: Comparison of current and recommended electoral arrangements

Current arrangements Final recommendations 2004 2009 2004 2009 Number of 56 56 57 57 councillors Number of wards 27 27 26 26 Average number of electors per 1,550 1,645 1,522 1,617 councillor Number of wards with a variance 7 6 4 1 more than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance 3 3 1 0 more than 20% from the average

124 As shown in Table 7, our final recommendations for Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council would result in a reduction in the number of wards with an electoral variance of more than 10% from seven to four. By 2009 only one ward is forecast to have an electoral variance of more than 10%. We propose an increase in the council size from 56 to 57 members.

Final recommendation Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council should comprise 57 councillors serving 26 wards, as detailed and named in Table 1, and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

125 As part of an FER the Committee can make recommendations for new electoral arrangements for parishes. Where there is no impact on the borough council’s electoral arrangements, the Committee will generally be content to put forward for consideration proposals from parish and town councils for changes to parish electoral arrangements in FERs. However, the Boundary Committee will

40 usually wish to see a degree of consensus between the Borough Council and the parish council concerned. Proposals should be supported by evidence, illustrating why changes to parish electoral arrangements are required. The Boundary Committee cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of a FER.

126 Responsibility for reviewing and implementing changes to the electoral arrangements of existing parishes, outside of an electoral review conducted by the Boundary Committee, lies with Borough Councils.2 If a Borough Council wishes to make an Order amending the electoral arrangements of a parish that has been subject to an electoral arrangements Order made by either the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission within the past five years, the consent of the Commission is required.

127 When reviewing electoral arrangements, we are required to comply as far as possible with the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different borough wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward of the borough. Accordingly, we propose consequential warding arrangements for the town of Hatfield to reflect the proposed borough wards.

128 During Stage One we received no proposals for revised parish council electoral arrangements, although the Borough Council indicated that it would want the new parish ward of Stapeley & District parish in Brine Leas ward to be called ‘Stapeley Urban’.

129 The parish of Nantwich is currently divided into four parish wards, Barony, Birchin, Weaver and Wellington, all served by three councillors. We did not receive any representations regarding Nantwich parish at Stage One. However, we proposed changes to the boundaries of Birchin and Wellington parish wards so that they were coterminous with the revised borough ward boundaries of Birchin and Brine Leas.

130 At Stage Three, Nantwich Town Council requested that the proposed Stapeley Urban parish ward of Stapeley & District Parish Council be transferred to Nantwich Town Council. We note this request, but are unable to consider alterations to the external boundaries of parishes as part of this Further Electoral Review. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Nantwich Town Council as final.

Final recommendation Nantwich Parish Council should comprise 12 parish councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Barony (returning three councillors), Birchin (returning three councillors), Weaver (returning three councillors) and Wellington (returning three councillors). The parish ward boundaries should reflect the proposed borough ward boundaries in the area, as illustrated and named on the large maps at the back of the report.

131 The parish of Stapeley & District is currently divided into two parish wards: Batherton (served by one councillor) and Stapeley (served by nine councillors).

2 Such reviews must be conducted in accordance with section 17 of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. 41 132 At Stage One we proposed consequential warding arrangements for the parish of Stapeley to reflect the proposed boundary between Brine Leas and Wybunbury borough wards. This required the division of Stapeley parish ward into two new parish wards. We noted that at Stage One the Borough Council indicated that it would like the area of Stapeley parish being transferred to Brine Leas borough ward to be called ‘Stapeley Urban’. We therefore named the new parish ward of Stapeley parish, Stapeley Urban and we are changing the name of Stapeley parish ward to Stapeley Rural, to reflect the difference between the two parish wards.

133 At Stage Three, Stapeley & District Parish Council wrote requesting that we refer correctly to it as Stapeley & District Parish Council, rather than Stapeley parish council. The Council also requested that Stapeley Rural and Stapeley Urban parish wards be renamed as Stapeley East and Stapeley West parish wards. It also requested that we alter the number of parish wards for the parish. A local resident also supported out proposed parish wards.

134 We note the comments of the Stapeley & District Parish Council. We propose adopting its parish ward names and the redistribution of councillors.

Final recommendation Stapeley & District Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Batherton (returning one councillor), Stapeley East (returning three councillors) and Stapeley West (returning six councillors). The parish ward boundaries should reflect the proposed borough ward boundaries in the area, as illustrated and named on Map 3.

135 The parish of Willaston is currently divided into two parish wards: Willaston Village Hall (served by nine councillors) and Willaston North (served by three councillors). We did not receive any representations regarding Willaston parish at Stage One. We proposed changes to the boundaries of Willaston Village Hall and Willaston North parish wards so that they were coterminous with the revised borough ward boundaries of St Mary’s and Willaston.

136 As a result of this revision we revised the allocation of councillors between the two parish wards to reflect the transfer of electors from Willaston Village Hall to Willaston North parish ward. Our draft recommendations proposed that Willaston Village Hall parish ward had eight councillors and Willaston North parish ward four councillors.

137 At Stage Three Willaston Parish Council stated that it had ‘no objections to the draft recommendations’. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Willaston parish as final.

Final recommendation Willaston Parish Council should comprise 12 parish councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Willaston Village Hall (returning eight councillors) and Willaston North (returning four councillors). The parish ward boundaries should reflect the proposed borough ward boundaries in the area, as illustrated and named on the large maps at the back of the report.

42 138 The parish of Wistaston is currently divided into three parish wards: Wells Green (served by three councillors), St Mary’s (served by seven councillors) and Wistaston Green (served by five councillors). We did not receive any representations regarding Wistaston parish at Stage One. We proposed changes to the boundaries of all three parish wards in Wistaston parish so that they were coterminous with the revised ward boundaries of Wistaston Green, St Mary’s and Wells Green.

139 We examined the allocation of councillors under Wistaston parish’s current council size and, for reasons of allocation, we proposed increasing the council size of Wistaston parish by one and adjusting the allocation of councillors to reflect the new warding arrangements of Wistaston parish. Our recommendation to amend the boundary between St John’s ward and Wistaston Green ward for access reasons required the creation of a new parish ward in Wistaston parish with an electorate of 263. Wistaston parish currently has 437 electors per parish councillor; however, we considered that ensuring access justifies creating a parish ward with one councilor representing only 263 electors. We therefore proposed that the new St John’s parish be served by one councillor, the revised Wistaston Green ward to be served by five councillors, St Mary’s ward by six councillors and Wells Green ward by four councillors.

140 At Stage Three, as outlined in paragraphs 93 – 97, there were several objections to our proposals to create St John’s parish ward. However, as outlined in paragraph 102, we did not consider that respondents put forward sufficiently strong evidence to justify moving away from the creation of this parish ward. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Wistaston parish as final.

Final recommendation Wistaston Parish Council should comprise 16 parish councillors, an increase of one, representing four wards: St John’s (returning one councillor), St Mary’s (returning six councillors), Wells Green (returning four councillors) and Wistaston Green (returning five councillors). The parish ward boundaries should reflect the proposed borough ward boundaries in the area, as illustrated and named on the large maps at the back of the report.

43 44 6 What happens next?

141 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in Crewe & Nantwich and submitted our final recommendations to the Electoral Commission, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation.3

142 It is now up to the Electoral Commission to decide whether or not to endorse our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an Order. Such an Order will not be made before 7 August 2007 and the Electoral Commission will normally consider all written representations made to them by that date.

143 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:

The Secretary The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW

Fax: 020 7271 0667 Email: [email protected]

The contact details above should only be used for queries regarding the implementation of our final recommendations.

The full report is available to download at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

3 Under the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended by SI No. 2001/3962). 45 46 7 Mapping

Final recommendations for Crewe & Nantwich

144 The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for Crewe & Nantwich.

• Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Crewe & Nantwich borough, including constituent parishes.

• Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed boundaries in the town of Crewe.

• Sheet 3, Map 3 illustrates the proposed boundaries in the towns of Crewe and Nantwich.

• Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed boundaries in the parish of Haslington.

47 48 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

Boundary Committee The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, responsible for undertaking electoral reviews

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

Consultation An opportunity for interested parties to comment and make proposals at key stages during the review

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve a council

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

Electoral Commission An independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Its aim is integrity and public confidence in the UK’s democratic process

Electoral equality A measure of ensuring that every person’s vote is of equal worth

49 Electoral imbalance Where there is a large difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the borough

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in local government elections

FER (or further electoral review) A further review of the electoral arrangements of a local authority following significant shifts in the electorate since the last periodic electoral review conducted between 1996 and 2004

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

National Park The 12 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and will soon be joined by the new designation of the South Downs. The definition of a National Park is: ‘An extensive area of beautiful and relatively wild country in which, for the nation's benefit and by appropriate national decision and action: – the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved; – access and facilities for open-air enjoyment are amply provided; – wildlife and buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected; – established farming use is effectively maintained’

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

50 Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward than the average the electors can be described as being over-represented

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single borough 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 residents of the parish who are on the electoral register, which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries

Parish electoral arrangements The total number of parish councillors; 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

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 Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

51 Political management arrangements The Local Government Act 2000 enabled local authorities to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from three broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet, a cabinet with a leader, or a directly elected mayor and council manager. Whichever of the categories it adopted became the new political management structure for the council

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward than the average the electors can be described as being under-represented

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

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

52 Appendix B

Code of practice on written consultation

The Cabinet Office’s November 2000 Code of Practice on Written Consultation (available at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/Consultation/Code.htm), 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 Boundary Committee for England, are encouraged to follow the Code.

The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed.

Table B1: The Boundary Committee 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 comply with this responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks requirement. should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

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.

5353