sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aireborough, Alwoodley, Alwoodley (ward), Armley, Armley (ward), Churwell

Electoral Review of Council

Leeds’ submission on a Pattern of Wards to the Local Government Boundary Commission for

1 | Page

Contents Page

Joint Statement from Group Leaders 3

Executive Summary 4

Part 1: Introduction and the Council’s Approach to Proposing a 6 Pattern of Wards

Part 2: Leeds - A City of and 9

Overview 9 Areas of Distinctive Character 9 Housing 11 Population 13 and Councils 15

Part 3: Electorate Forecast 16

Authority level forecast using ONS Mid-Year Estimates 16 Electorate to household ratio 16 Occupancy rates 16 Forecasting the electorate using housing data 17 Ward level electorate forecast using housing data 17 Conclusions 19

Appendix A: Proposals – Major Changes 23

A1: City & / Hyde Park & Woodhouse / 24 A2: & / 29 A3: / Bramley & 31

Appendix B: Proposals – Minor Changes 32

B1: Adel & / 33 B2: Adel & Wharfedale / 34 B3: Ardsley & Robin Hood / 35 B4: / Beeston & 36 B5: Beeston & Holbeck / Farnley & Wortley 37 B6: Farnley & Wortley / 38 B7: & / Kippax & 39 B8: Garforth & Swillington / Rothwell 40 B9: Garforth & Swillington / 41 B10: Harewood / Cross Gates & Whinmoor 42 B11: / & Yeadon 43 B12: Morley North / 44 B13: Weetwood / (first proposal) 45 B14: Weetwood / Moortown (second proposal) 46

Appendix C: Conclusions 47

2 | Page

We introduce this submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission on behalf of the constituents of the that we, and our elected colleagues, represent.

The last electoral review of the Leeds area was completed in July 2003. Since that review concluded, Leeds’ population has increased by over 50,000 people. Our forecasted electorate for 2021 includes a number of new developments as part of our Core Strategy which will see our electorate increase by an estimated further 43,000 people. There have been a number of new developments built across existing ward boundaries since the last review which we would also like to address as part of our proposals. All these changes have increased the number of electors in many wards. The proposals we have made in this submission will seek to address that and ensure the average number of electors in each ward is more consistent.

Our approach to developing our proposals is to minimise major changes as far as possible. This helps ensure any proposed changes maintains existing communities and settlements as much as possible so they retain their identities and local cohesion. Local Ward Members have been invaluable in this process with their local knowledge of the wards and communities they represent. We established a working group of senior Members to lead on this important work liaising with all Members.

It is our view that the changes to our ward boundaries proposed in this document accurately represents our communities and provides a better balance of the electorate across our wards, maintaining effective and convenient local government for everyone living in Leeds.

Signed Signed Signed Signed

Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Judith Andrew Robert David Blake Carter Finnigan Blackburn

Leader of Leader of the Leader of the Leader of the Council & Opposition & MBI Group Green Group Leader of the Leader of the Labour Group Conservative Group

3 | Page

Part 1: Introduction and the Council’s Approach to Proposing a Pattern of Wards

1. Electoral Reviews are reviews of the electoral arrangements of local authorities which determine: -

 the total number of councillors to be elected to the council;  the number and boundaries of wards;  the number of councillors to be elected for each ward; and,  the name of any ward.

2. Electoral Reviews are initiated primarily to improve electoral equality. This means ensuring, so far as is reasonable, that for any principal council, the ratio of electors to councillors in each electoral ward or division, is approximately the same.

3. When the electoral variances in representation across a local authority become notable, an Electoral Review is required. The criteria for initiating a review in those circumstances are as follows: -

 more than 30% of a council’s wards/divisions having an electoral imbalance of more than 10% from the average ratio for that authority; and/or  one or more wards/divisions with an electoral imbalance of more than 30%; and  the imbalance is unlikely to be corrected by foreseeable changes to the electorate within a reasonable period.

4. The Commission wrote to Leeds on 10 June 2014 to advise that on the basis of the electoral data they held for our authority, City and Hunslet Ward (the largest in the country) had an electoral variance from the average for our authority of 35.33%. As this met the criteria above the Commission advised its intention to conduct an Electoral Review.

5. Before the review commenced, the council was required to decide whether to continue to elect in thirds with a fallow year every fourth year, or to alternatively move to all-out elections every four years. The council informed the Commission that there was cross party support for elections by thirds to continue.

6. Another key issue which the Boundary Commission wished to have initial feedback on was the size of the council. The council provided robust evidence to support their view that 99 Members was the correct size to represent the diverse population of Leeds. The Commission agreed with this and announced that it is minded to retain the council size at 99 Members for Leeds.

6 | Page

7. The Boundary Commission are currently consulting on changes to warding arrangements for Leeds. Anyone with an interest can submit a proposal to for a new pattern of ward boundaries. Any submissions need to be received by the Commission no later than 5 September.

8. The Boundary Commission provide guidance to enable the strongest possible case to be put to the Commission. That guidance makes clear that the aspects that the Commission look at when making a decision on warding arrangements are: -

 The new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority;  Ward patterns should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable; and  The electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government and reflect the electoral cycle of the council.

The Council’s Approach to Proposing a Pattern of Wards

9. The council formed a working group of senior Members to lead on proposals to change ward boundaries in Leeds to ensure that, as far as is reasonable, the ratio of electors to councillors in each electoral ward, is approximately the same.

10. All 99 Members in Leeds were informed of the review and invited to submit recommendations for change to the working group. Ward councillors were consulted again on any proposals that were recommended for their ward. Members took into consideration the following information when considering their recommendations: -

 local opinion of their constituents;  past history of communities and settlements in their wards;  community boundaries formed by parish or town councils; and  Community interests and identities including history of the area, community groups, settlements, parish or town councils, local amenities, and natural boundaries to well established communities.

11. The working group focussed its attention on the main areas of electoral inequality and has submitted proposals for some major changes to ward boundaries in Appendix A in the following wards:-

 City & Hunslet / Hyde Park & Woodhouse / Headingley  Cross Gates & Whinmoor / Harewood  Kirkstall / Bramley & Stanningley

12. The working group has also looked at some long-standing anomalies that have been created by new developments being built over existing ward boundaries, or the shifting of 7 | Page

community interests and identities which are now split over existing ward boundaries. The working group has submitted proposals for some more minor changes to address these anomalies in Appendix B in the following wards:-

 Adel & Wharfedale / Alwoodley  Adel & Wharfedale / Weetwood  Ardsley & Robin Hood / Rothwell  Armley / Beeston & Holbeck  Beeston & Holbeck / Farnley & Wortley  Farnley & Wortley / Morley North  Garforth & Swillington / Kippax & Methley  Garforth & Swillington / Rothwell  Garforth & Swillington / Temple Newsam  Harewood / Cross Gates & Whinmoor  Horsforth / Otley & Yeadon  Morley North / Morley South  Weetwood / Moortown (two proposals)

13. Appendix C applies all the changes proposed in the previous two appendices and shows their effect on the electorate forecast for 2021.

8 | Page

Part 2: Leeds - A City of Towns and Villages

1. In our earlier submission to the Commission regarding the size of the Council, we provided an overview of the changes to warding arrangements, population and housing developments in Leeds. That information is equally relevant as background to our submission for revised warding arrangements and is partly reproduced and updated below.

Overview

2. Leeds has transformed from a mainly industrial city into a regional capital with a wide economic base. As the leading financial and legal centre in the UK outside , the city is home to some of the largest financial institutions in the country and this economic strength is widely recognised as placing Leeds in an advantageous position in helping it to recover from the current economic downturn.

3. The city has a diverse economy, with the potential to grow in a number of key sectors; attracting major investment in housing, offices, shops, transport and other facilities. Of further significance to this are Leeds’ excellent universities, higher education establishments and first-class culture and sporting venues.

4. Leeds has many strengths and great potential in achieving longer term economic prosperity, social progress and in maintaining and enhancing a quality environment. In meeting the many challenges associated with this ambition, and central to the Vision for Leeds and the Core Strategy, is the desire to ensure that the needs for job and housing growth is planned and delivered in a sustainable way. In practice this means that Leeds is a place where everyone can enjoy a good quality of life and that the form and location of development respects and enhances the unique character of local areas and meets the needs of communities.

Areas of Distinctive Character

5. The Leeds Metropolitan District covers an area of 213 square miles (551 km2) and benefits from major road, rail and air connections to neighbouring towns and cities, and to national and international networks.

6. Leeds is a rich and varied place with a distinctive settlement hierarchy that includes a vibrant city centre. The city centre provides the strategic and commercial focus to both the district and to the City Region. Over the last 10 to 15 years, the city centre has seen major changes. This has not only been demonstrated by the pace of development that has taken place but its increased economic role for jobs with 30% of jobs being in . A major feature of this period has also been the large scale of residential development within the city centre, together with an on-going programme of regeneration and renewal of infrastructure including public spaces.

9 | Page

7. The main urban area covers nearly a third of the district, and includes two thirds of the total number of houses. It includes the city centre and the built up areas surrounding it, from inner-city communities such as Beeston and to outer suburbs like Horsforth and .

8. The rural parts of Leeds have a variety of individual characters and identities, and include larger settlements such as and Otley, as well as several smaller towns, small villages, and other rural settlements. These outer lying settlements have their own important histories and patterns of growth, and were brought under the administrative governance of Leeds district in 1974. At this time a number of residual functions (Police and Fire Services and Transportation – e.g. local buses and trains) were retained by at a county level and overseen by councillors elected for the West Yorkshire County area as a whole.

9. Originally, from 1974 the City was comprised of 32 wards. However, in 1980 the warding was, following a public inquiry, increased to the 33 wards, with 3 councillors per ward that continues today. This warding number has allowed the interests and identities of local communities to be reflected and represented in the city.

Map 1: Formation of the Metropolitan District in 1974 (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Leeds)

The former is shaded in grey. Other areas:

1. of Morley 2. Municipal Borough of 3. Urban District 4. Horsforth Urban District 5. Otley Urban District 6. Garforth Urban District 7. Rothwell Urban District 8. 8a. (part) 9. Wetherby Rural District (part)

10. Wharfedale Rural District (part)

10. From 31st March 1986, the county arrangements, to oversee the residual functions, were abolished and those responsibilities were transferred to the individual West Yorkshire district councils who made appointments of their own councillors (on the basis of statutory provisions) to these bodies.

10 | Page

11. Map 2 overleaf, reproduced from our Core Strategy, identifies the settlement types and locations across the city. The main urban area of the district is formed by Leeds city centre and the surrounding communities and neighbourhoods. These form the main urban and suburban areas of the district. In addition the district has a large number of major settlements at Garforth, , Yeadon, Rawdon, Morley, Otley, Rothwell and Wetherby in greater number (19), smaller settlements (such as Bramham, Collingham, , Kippax and Pool-in-Wharfedale) and other villages.

12. These settlements are at the heart of Leeds and contribute significantly to the unique character and identify of our communities. They provide for weekly and day-to-day shopping and service the varied needs of our citizens close to where they live and work. Councillors, with their local knowledge, are crucial to support the vitality and viability of these settlements, as are our 10 community committees, which provide a focus for service delivery in those communities.

13. It is our recommendation that changes to our current warding pattern is minimised as much as possible; otherwise the identities of these settlements could be disrupted by new boundaries. Our submission, therefore, concentrates on minimising major change to a small number of wards that will assist in achieving a better electoral equality across the city, but allow Leeds to maintain as much of its individuality and identity as possible.

Housing

14. One of the biggest challenges Leeds faces is to provide enough quality and accessible homes to meet the city’s growing population, whilst protecting the quality of the environment and respecting community identity. Within this overall context the need for affordable housing are a number of key issues.

15. The adopted Core Strategy (November 2014) sets the level and rate of new housing in Leeds between 2012 and 2028. The Core Strategy and the application of national guidance (the National Planning Policy Framework) establish a need to deliver around 41,800 new homes between 2012 and 2021. 7,222 homes were completed between April 2012 and March 2015 leaving a residual of 34,578 to deliver to 2021. It is clear that house building in Leeds needs to significantly increase and a range of Government, sub- regional and local programmes are in place to help achieve this. We also have our own council led house building programme and a series of initiatives to help stimulate the delivery of housing in regeneration areas.

16. There are clear signs that the housing market in Leeds has recovered to allow a significant increase in house building and importantly there is a significant supply of land to facilitate this. As of September 2015 2,232 homes are under construction on 117 sites with a 2,500 homes yet to start on these sites. The future pipeline also looks healthy

11 | Page

with 8,500 new homes approved across 124 sites during 2014/15 with total stock of houses with full permission now resting at 339 sites (14,000 units). Added to this are a further 5,500 homes with outline permission.

17. We have also recently demonstrated in excess of a 5 year housing land supply and this has been upheld by the Secretary of State and the High Court. Our recently adopted Core Strategy contains a target, over the life of the plan to 2028, for a further 70,000 (net) houses to be built.

18. It’s clear that this planned increase in housing will lead to a greater degree of electoral inequality in some wards by 2021. Our submission concentrates changes in these wards to ensure that future developments are taken into account, and the new communities and interests the new houses remain together.

Population

19. The city’s population has grown significantly during the last 20 years, unlike many others in the UK. The growth seen in Leeds has been attributed to a number of factors, including a strong economy, buoyant markets and increased in-migration levels. Over the past decade, the city has experienced a large in-migration of economically active people looking for better quality of life.

20. The 2011 Census estimated that the population of Leeds Metropolitan District was 751,500, whilst the latest mid-year estimates for 2014 show the Leeds population at 766,399 – a growth of 2% over three years. This correlates to the average population growth since 2001 of about ½ a per cent each year (see Chart 1).

Chart 1: Growth between 2001 and 2014 (the latest mid-year estimate)

13 | Page

21. The growth of the Leeds population is estimated to reach 860,618 by 2028 (based upon a custom demographic analysis utilising local housing and GP registration data for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment report). This compares relatively closely to the ONS sub-national population projections for a Leeds population of 839,500 by 2028 (who also estimate the population to reach 877,000 by 2037).

22. The distribution of the Leeds population across the current Wards has seen an influx into the centre and south of the city (see Map 3).

Map 3: Distribution of the Leeds population across the current Wards

23. Leeds is clearly becoming a more diverse city with over 130 nationalities and increasing numbers of people identifying with minority ethnic groups. In 2001 the city’s black and minority ethnic (BME) population totalled 77,530 (10.8% of the resident population), but by 2011 the number had increased to 141,771 (19% of the resident population). Within Leeds, the Pakistani community is the largest “single” BME community in the city with 22,492 people (3% of the total resident population).

24. When considering any changes to our existing pattern of wards, the council has been careful to ensure that any proposals do not create artificial boundaries and split up communities from different backgrounds. These diverse communities have a rich background and history of their own that 14 | Page

Appendix A: Proposals – Major Changes

1. Leeds proposes limiting significant changes to the warding arrangements to seven wards, namely: -

 City & Hunslet / Hyde Park & Woodhouse / Headingley  Cross Gates & Whinmoor / Harewood  Kirkstall / Bramley & Stanningley

2. These wards represent the greatest degree of electoral inequality in Leeds. The proposals to address this inequality are consistent with the Commission’s criteria to ensure: -

 The new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority;  Ward patterns – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable; and  The electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government and reflect the electoral cycle of the council.

3. This approach reduces the need for change in well-established communities that make up the other wards in the city. It is important that established communities are not split into different wards unnecessarily so that identities are not compromised and lost.

23 | Page

A1: City & Hunslet / Hyde Park & Woodhouse / Headingley

City & Hunslet has the largest variance from the average number of electors at 77% above. A number of changes have been made to seek electoral equality in this ward, which reduces the variance to 9% above. Parts of City & Hunslet have been transferred into the surrounding wards, ensuring that the areas that are transferred are kept complete to maintain their identity and ensure they have an association with the new ward.

Headingley and Beeston & Holbeck wards have projected electorates of 24% and 14% below the average respectively. It is sensible for areas of Hyde Park & Woodhouse and City & Holbeck to be transferred into these wards to bring their average electorate up and help manage electorate across all four wards. It is necessary to contain the changes to these areas to ensure that local communities’ identities are maintained. There is a band formed of the office, retail, market and quarry hill that aren't as heavily residential as the north and south so there is a natural split between Whitehall Road / and Leeds (Clarence) Dock and the Park Square / North Street and more student flats around the arena in the north. Using Wellington Street, Boar Lane and the railway provides a solid quality boundary. People living in The Calls area have told councillors they view that area as an identified community outside the city.

The proposals create three new wards: Headingley & Hyde Park at 4% above the average; Little London & Woodhouse at 7% above the average; and Hunslet & Riverside at 9% above the average.

 Transfer proposed development to east of river in CHA to BRJ. This development, being on east side of the river, will be more closely associated with and Richmond Hill than City and Hunslet.  Transfer land and proposed developments south of the train station in CHD to BHB as this area is more closely associated with Holbeck.  Transfer New Hall from MIH to BHE as this area is more closely associated with Beeston.  Create new ward boundary from existing boundary with HEE along Alexandra Road, then north along Hyde Park Road, east along Moorland Road, north along Clarendon Road, then follow the east boundary of to the A660, then east along Woodhouse Lane, north along Raglan Road, east along St Mark’s Road, then north along the eastern edge of the park on North West Road, north west along Woodhouse Street, and finally north east along Johnston Street until it reaches the existing boundary with CAJ. This keeps the Neighbourhood Plan for HWB, HWD & HED and North Hyde Park Residents Association for HEC, HWI & HWM contained to the north of the new boundary. Ward to north of new boundary will be renamed new ward Headingley & Hyde Park and to the south will be new ward name Little London & Woodhouse.  Create new ward boundary from existing boundary with AMM along Inner Ring Road, south east along the canal by Gotts Road, then north along the east boundary of the former YEP buildings to Wellington Street, then east along Boar Lane,

24 | Page

Duncan Street, Cloth Hall Street down to the railway line, then follow the railway line to the existing boundary with Burmantofts and Richmond Hill. Ward to the north of the new boundary will be new ward name Little London & Woodhouse and south will be new ward name Hunslet & Riverside.  Transfer HWJ to new Little London & Woodhouse ward as it is more closely associated with the Little London community.

Maps showing existing and proposed boundaries are on the following pages.

25 | Page

26 | Page

27 | Page

28 | Page

A2: Cross Gates & Whinmoor / Harewood

Our forecasted electorate for 2021 shows Harewood at 13% less than the average and Cross Gates & Whinmoor 15% above the average electorate. There is a band of new development planned for the Red Hall area of the Cross Gates and Whinmoor Ward that, when built, will have a closer association with Shadwell in Harewood Ward. Our proposal is to create a new ward boundary between Cross Gates & Whinmoor and Harewood that moves the new development into Harewood. This will reduce Harewood to only 5% less than the average and Cross Gates & Whinmoor will be reduced to only 6% above the average electorate.

The proposed changes will ensure all the northern quadrant is together in one ward and preserves the existing population in Cross Gates & Whinmoor. This provides a good quality boundary that allows for more effective representation in the area.

 New boundary starts at junction of A6120 Ring Road and A58 Wetherby Road, following Wetherby Road north to Red Hall Lane then east and along Skeltons Lane to the path leading south west along the western side of the new development, then follow the boundary of the new development until it meets Grimes Dyke, then follow the dyke until it meets the A64 Road, then north following the A64 York Road until it meets the existing boundary with HAJ. Area to the north of the new boundary will be transferred to Harewood; area to the south will remain Cross Gates & Whinmoor.

Map showing existing and proposed boundaries is on the following page.

29 | Page

30 | Page

A3: Kirkstall / Bramley & Stanningley

Our forecasted electorate for 2021 shows Kirkstall at 11% less than the average electorate. Our proposal is to transfer part of Kirkstall Forge development in BSB to KIA. The new border follows the south of the new development, along the railway line. This will ensure that, when built, residents of the new Kirkstall Forge development will be part of Kirkstall Ward. This change reduces the average electorate to 9% less.

31 | Page

Appendix B: Proposals – Minor Changes

1. Since the last Electoral Review in 2003, a number of small developments have been built over ward boundaries. This has resulted in new communities being split inappropriately between wards that do not support community identity or cohesion in those areas. We would like to use this Electoral Review as an opportunity to correct these minor anomalies.

2. The boundaries concerned are: -

 Adel & Wharfedale / Alwoodley  Adel & Wharfedale / Weetwood  Ardsley & Robin Hood / Rothwell  Armley / Beeston & Holbeck  Beeston & Holbeck / Farnley & Wortley  Farnley & Wortley / Morley North  Garforth & Swillington / Kippax & Methley  Garforth & Swillington / Rothwell  Garforth & Swillington / Temple Newsam  Harewood / Cross Gates & Whinmoor  Horsforth / Otley  Morley North / Morley South  Weetwood / Moortown (two proposals)

3. These changes, although having a minor contribution to reducing electoral inequality, will help ensure the boundaries better reflect community interests and identities.

32 | Page

B1: Adel & Wharfedale / Alwoodley

Residents of the Adel Mill complex (around 9 or 10 houses) currently in the Alwoodley Ward have always had a closer association with Adel as they are geographically closer to Adel and use their amenities. Alter boundary so it follows the north eastern edge of the Adel Mill complex to transfer it into the Adel and Wharfedale Ward.

33 | Page

B2: Adel & Wharfedale / Weetwood

Since the original boundary was created, the new Bodington Manor development has been built on the old University Bodington Hall student halls. Currently in Weetwood this development is more closely associated with Adel and is accessed mainly from Adel Lane. Proposal is to move the boundary south so it follows the A1620 Ring Road to the roundabout with the A660 Otley Road and follows Otley Road north until it re-joins the existing boundary.

34 | Page

B3: Ardsley & Robin Hood / Rothwell

Three terraced properties on Leadwell Lane are currently in Ardsley & Robin Hood but are part of the same community on Leadwell Lane in Rothwell. Proposal is to move the boundary of RLJ north into ARL so all properties in Leadwell Lane are in Rothwell.

35 | Page

B4: Armley / Beeston & Holbeck

Currently, the piece of land that was formally the Lye Spencer Steel Works and the section of Oldfield Lane in front of it are part of BHJ polling district. While this piece of land currently has no electors living there, there is a view that possibly, if the brownfield land remains vacant for any length of time, somebody may put in an application for housing on that site. If that were to happen it would mean that any elector living in a house built on this site would be registered in BHJ, but to get from their home to the BHJ polling station would require then to either go through AMM and BHA polling districts, or alternatively go through both FWK and BHI districts. While this does not currently affect any houses, to stop the potential of a future anomaly occurring it is proposed to move the boundary between AMM in Armley ward and BHJ in Beeston & Holbeck so that instead of following the Leeds- Interchange railway line as it does at present it would instead follow the Leeds-London railway line from Whitehall Road to Copley Hill. This would have the effect that if there were any residential development on the former Lye Spence Steel Works the properties would be in the AMM polling district of Armley Ward.

36 | Page

B5: Beeston & Holbeck / Farnley & Wortley

There are a small number of residential properties and a public house on Whitehall Road between Dragon Bridge and the current boundary between BHI and BHJ in Beeston and Holbeck Ward. The vast majority of other residential properties in BHI are, to say the least, some distance away and are separated from Whitehall Road by the M621 as well as several other primary roads, a main railway line and a significant amount of industrial properties, whereas the houses in question are effectively adjacent to housing in FWK in Farnley & Wortley Ward. The properties affected are the Dragon Public House (150 Whitehall Road, LS12 4TJ) and numbers 207 to 231 Whitehall Road, LS12 6EW. It is proposed to move the above properties from polling district BHI in Beeston & Holbeck to FWK in Farnley & Wortley by adjusting the Ward boundary to the rear of these properties.

37 | Page

B6: Farnley & Wortley / Morley North

When New was built approximately ten years ago, it was noted that the northern part of Digpal Road, beyond Farnley Wood Beck and in Farnley & Wortley, could only be reached by road through the rest of the New Village, which is in Morley North. When the northern part of Digpal Road was first built, residents were charged the Morley precept, which had to be refunded as they were outside the parish. They are now in Leeds West parliamentary constituency, rather than Morley & Outwood. It is proposed that a new boundary be drawn along the M621 north-eastwards to where it crosses the - - Leeds railway, then back along the railway until it reaches the current Farnley & Wortley - Morley North - Beeston & Holbeck meeting point south- east of Cottingley Station, taking a triangular salient into Morley North beyond Farnley Wood Beck, which currently forms a salient of Farnley & Wortley south- east of the M621 between Morley North and Beeston & Holbeck. Moving into Beeston & Holbeck would not be possible as there is no direct roadway. Properties which would be affected are 11 to 57 Digpal Road and 8 to 38 Digpal Road; between them have about 69 electors. Snittles Farm would also be taken into Morley North; it is believed to be unoccupied now, and usually is reached by a track leading under the motorway to Gelderd Road, though it has an alternative private access by New Village Way into Churwell, so anyone living there wouldn't be inconvenienced or disadvantaged if the ward boundary changed.

38 | Page

B7: Garforth & Swillington / Kippax & Methley

A number of properties along this section of the boundary between Garforth & Swillington and Kippax & Methley have been split inappropriately between the two wards. The following three proposals corrects these anomalies: (a) move the boundary to the west of the houses on Preston Lane so they are all in Kippax & Methley, (b) move the boundary to the west of the houses on Hollinhurst and Queen Street so they are all in Kippax & Methley, and (c) where the boundary cuts through houses in the Queen Street and Elizabeth Road area amend the boundary to the east so it accurately follows Queen Street and then runs along the back of the houses on Burn Close until it re-joins the existing boundary, thereby keeping the whole of that estate in Garforth & Swillington.

39 | Page

B8: Garforth & Swillington / Rothwell

A further anomaly where the existing boundary runs through houses to the south of the canal. Proposal is to move this boundary slightly north so it follows the public footpath and accurately runs along the back of all properties in The Locks moving all affected properties into Rothwell.

40 | Page

B9: Garforth & Swillington / Temple Newsam

The existing boundary cuts through a number of properties in Colton, splitting the community inappropriately between Temple Newsam and Garforth & Swillington Wards. Proposal is move the boundary to the east so it runs along the A1(M) carriageway, so all properties are in Temple Newsam.

41 | Page

B10: Harewood / Cross Gates & Whinmoor

Morwick House/Farm, off the A64 York Road, is spit by the current boundary between Harewood and Cross Gates & Whinmoor. It would make sense for the dwellings situated in this development to be within the same ward. Any local issues arising from this development regarding departments of the local authority will be the same for each dwelling as the site has shared access. It is therefore sensible to group the development within the same ward to reflect a shared identity and make it easier to deliver effective representation as a local councillor. Proposal is for an amended boundary for HAJ following the Grimes Dyke.

42 | Page

B11: Horsforth / Otley & Yeadon

Properties in Owlet Farm are split by the existing ward boundary between Horsforth and Otley & Yeadon. This area has a close association with the Owlet buildings to the south. Proposal is to move the existing boundary south to follow the track and Lane so all properties are in Otley & Yeadon ward.

43 | Page

B12: Morley North / Morley South

Currently we have an irregular boundary between MNB and MSA which means that some properties north of the M621 are in MSA, when they can only be accessed from MNB and are part of that community. Proposal is to alter the boundary so it follows the M621 which is a better natural boundary between the two wards.

44 | Page

B13: Weetwood / Moortown (first proposal)

There are some properties on Hollin Drive currently in Moortown when the rest of Hollin Drive is in Weetwood. All properties on Hollin Drive are part of the same community and are accessed through Weetwood and share their amenities. Proposal is to alter the boundary so all properties are in Weetwood.

45 | Page

B14: Weetwood / Moortown (second proposal)

The current boundary runs through some new buildings that have been built on Highbury Lane. Propose that the boundary is moved to the east of the development to follow the line of Beck then re-joins the existing boundary on Meanwood Road. This would have the effect of moving the whole development into Weetwood. These are mainly commercial premises and would have negligible effect on the electorate. This small block of properties is seen as part of the “Highburys” neighbourhood and the move would result in the whole of this neighbourhood down to being part of the same ward.

46 | Page