LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF SOUTH

METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF

Boundaries with:- () WAKEFIELD (West Yorkshire) HIGH PEAK (Derbyshire)

WAKEFIELD

KIRKLEES

DONCASTER BARNSL :Y

HIGH PEAK ROTHERHAM

REPORT NO.601 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO. 601 * LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND *

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton

MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals

Mr G Prentice

Mrs H R V sarkany

Mr c W Smith

Professor K Young RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY AND DISTRICTS OF .

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BARNSLEY AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM, AND WITH KIRKLEES AND WAKEFIELD IN WEST YORKSHIRE AND WITH HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE.

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Barnsley Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Barnsley as part of our review of the Metropolitan .County of South Yorkshire and its Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan authorities, the County and District Councils bordering South Yorkshire and to parish councils in Barnsley and the adjoining districts; to the Local Authority Associations; the Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities and statutory undertakers which might have an interest as well as to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and the local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The Metropolitan Boroughs were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other principal authorities, to assist us in publishing the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers, so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The authorities were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those involved with services such as the police and administration of justice.

3. A period of seven months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities and any person or body interested in the review to send us their views on whether changes to Barnsley's boundary were desirable and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US

4. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987, we received representations from the Metropolitan Boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham. We also received representations from the Parish Councils of Barnburgh, and .

5. We consider that, taken as a whole, the present area of Barnsley is apt for securing effective and convenient local government and we have decided not to make any proposals for major change. Our proposals relate only to minor realignments to the boundaries described in this report.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER AND WAKEFIELD

Burnt Wood Lane, Burnt Wood Hall and Howe11 Wood

6. Barnsley had suggested realignment of its boundary with Wakefield to make it more readily identifiable, by realigning it round the edge of a field adjacent to Howell Wood.

7. Doncaster had made an alternative suggestion, to unite Howell Wood and Burnt Hall Estate in Doncaster. However, South Kirkby and Moorthorpe Town Council had objected to Doncaster's suggestion and, instead, had suggested that the whole of the area be united in Wakefield.

8. We considered all the evidence submitted and acknowledged that the present Barnsley/Wakefield boundary was obscure in this area. We concluded that realigning it round the edge of the field adjacent to Howell Wood would make it more readily identifiable. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a modification to transfer the Ranger's Office and Burnt Wood Lane to Doncaster, thus uniting the Howell Wood Country Park in that authority.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER

(a) Spry Lane

9. Doncaster had suggested that the Borough boundary be amended so that Spry Lane, and an area of agricultural land to the north east, of the Lane, be transferred from Barnsley to Doncaster. This, it argued, would provide a clearly defined boundary and simplify highway maintenance. Barnsley supported Doncaster's suggestion and further suggested that a small boundary anomaly at the north end of Spry Lane be removed by continuing the suggested alignment north, to meet the existing boundary at Howell Lane.

10. We considered that a combination of both Doncaster's and Barnsley's suggestions would simplify highway maintenance and decided to adopt them as the basis of our draft proposal.

(b) Chapel Lane

11. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested that, in order to simplify highway administration and maintenance, their boundary be realigned to transfer Chapel Lane from Doncaster to Barnsley. Barnsley stated that the current boundary in this area is anomalous and that while Chapel Lane is located in Doncaster, it is in fact maintained by Barnsley. We agreed with Barnsley's suggestion and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

(c) Bluebell Wood

12. Barnsley and Doncaster had both suggested that the boundary be realigned to transfer the area known as Bluebell Wood, which is said to be regarded as part of the village of Thurscoe in Barnsley, from Doncaster to Barnsley.

13. We noted that the land is owned by Barnsley and that difficulties had been experienced in the exercise of planning control. We considered that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to transfer the land to Barnsley and therefore decided to adopt that authority's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(d) Colliery Tip

14. Barnsley and Doncaster had both suggested a realignment of their boundary to transfer the tipping area of Hickleton Colliery from Doncaster to Barnsley.

15. Barnsley had stated that the area is closely allied to the villages of Thurscoe and in Barnsley and that the Borough wished to make improvements to the area. It said transfer of the tipping area would enable the Borough to carry out remedial work and improve the land for the benefit of local communities.

16. We concluded that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to transfer the area to Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion'as our draft proposal.

(e) Pickhills Avenue

17. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested a realignment to their boundary to unite in Barnsley two properties on Pickhills Avenue.

18. We considered that the properties were rightly part of the village of Goldthorpe, in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(f) Goldthorpe Tip

19. Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested similar realignments to their boundary to transfer the tipping area of Goldthorpe Tip from Doncaster to Barnsley.

20. Barnsley had stated that the area is part of Goldthorpe village in Barnsley and that the Borough wished to carry out remedial work to the site. Additionally, the present boundary is in part obscured by overtipping.

21. We noted the uncertainties caused by the current boundary and agreed that the tipping area should be united in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion, subject to a technical modification suggested by the Ordnance Survey as our draft proposal.

(g) Green Lane, Barnburgh

22. Barnburgh Parish Council (in Doncaster) had suggested an amendment to Barnsley's boundary to transfer Green Lane, Barnburgh from Barnsley to Doncaster.

23. Barnburgh Parish Council had stated that the residents of Green Lane wished to be part of Barnburgh Parish and considered that their community of interest lay with'Doncaster. We agreed that this area appeared to be more closely associated with Barnburgh village than with Goldthorpe in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt the Parish Council's suggestion as our draft proposal. (h) BoIton Common

24. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested a similar realignment of the boundary in this area which is currently unidentifiable, and that the mid course of the would provide a clear boundary. Doncaster proposed a more extended realignment along the River Dearne.

25. We agreed that the boundary should be realigned to the mid course of the River Dearne and decided to adopt Doncaster's suggestion for a more extended realignment, as our draft proposal.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY, DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM

26. We noted that a consequence of our draft proposal in respect of Bolton Common would be to produce a gap in the boundary between Doncaster and -Rotherham. Barnsley and Rotherham had both suggested realigning the Barnsley/Doncaster/Rotherham boundary along the Pontefract-Rotherham railway line from Bolton Bridge.

27. Rotherham had also suggested realigning its boundary with Doncaster so as to incorporate Road within Doncaster. This would facilitate highway maintenance.

28. We considered all the information before us and concluded that a more readily identifiable boundary would be the eastern embankment of the Pontefract/Rotherham railway line. We therefore decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as our draft proposal including its suggestion to incorporate Mexborough Road within Doncaster.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND ROTHERHAM

(a) River Dearne/Knoll Beck

29. Barnsley and Rotherham had both suggested realigning their boundary to the course of the River Dearne and Knoll Beck. Barnsley had stated that the current boundary was unidentifiable and that its suggestion, to follow the mid course of the River Dearne, would provide a clear boundary. We agreed and therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(b) Wath Concentration Yard

30. Rotherham had suggested realigning its boundary to the north of Wath Concentration Yard, on the grounds that the current boundary was not readily identifiable and that the footpath to the north of the yard would provide a better boundary feature. Barnsley did not object to this suggestion.

31. We agreed that the current boundary is obscure and decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(c) Knoll Beck

32. Both Barnsley and Rotherham had suggested realigning their boundary to the new course of Knoll Beck, in order to provide a more clearly identifiable boundary based upon physical features.

33. We agreed with the Boroughs that the boundary should follow the new course of the Knoll Beck and decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(d) Cortonwood Colliery Site

34. Barnsley and Rotherham had both suggested realigning their boundary at the Cortonwood Colliery Site to unite the site in Rotherham.

35. Barnsley stated that the current boundary was hindering the economic and recreational development of the site and that rationalisation of the boundary would improve its administration and thus the economy of the area. 36. We acknowledged the difficulties said to be caused by the current boundary and decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to two minor technical modifications suggested by Ordnance Survey.

(e) Tip

37. Barnsley had suggested a realignment of the boundary so as to bring the whole of Elsecar Tip within its area, stating that the current boundary was obscured by overtipping and in need of clarification. In addition, the Borough claimed that the tip formed a dominant feature of the villages of Elsecar and Hemingfield, and that the restoration and management of the. tip would assist the development of the area as a whole.

38. Rotherham agreed that the current boundary was obscured, but suggested that Elsecar Tip should be united in Rotherham.

39. We considered the arguments of the two authorities and took the view that the owners of the properties in Wath Road, in Barnsley, which were most likely to be affected by the tipping area, should have recourse to the authority managing the tip. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(f) Water Lane

40. Rotherham had suggested an amendment to the boundary to unite Water Lane in Barnsley, stating that the current boundary is obscure and that their suggested amendment would simplify highway maintenance. We agreed that the suggestion would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal. (g) Broadcar Road

41. Rotherham had suggested realigning its boundary to the new line of Broadcar Road, a suggestion supported by Barnsley. They ; • stated that the current boundary which had remained unchanged when Broadcar Road had been realigned ; it now detracted from effective highway maintenance. Barnsley agreed with Rotherham's suggestion which we decided to adopt as our draft proposal.

(h) Hood Hill Farm/A6135

42. In the interests of simplifying highway maintenance in the area, Rotherham had suggested realigning the boundary so as to transfer a stretch of the A6135 to Barnsley, uniting Hood Hill Farm in Rotherham.

43. We agreed with Rotherham that the suggested realignment would improve highway maintenance in the area. We therefore decided to adopt the suggestion as our draft proposal.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND KIRKLEES IN WEST YORKSHIRE

(a) Fall Edge Lane

44. Kirklees had suggested a realignment of its boundary with Barnsley to bring within its area the junction of Fall Edge Lane and Road, in order to simplify highway maintenance. We agreed with Kirklees's suggestion and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

(b) Upper Denby

45.* Barnsley had suggested that its boundary with Kirklees be realigned so as to unite the village of Upper Denby in Kirklees. They stated that the change would improve service provision in the area. 46. Kirklees had also suggested uniting the village, including a number of fields to provide the village with a "rural envelope".

47. Denby Dale Parish Council suggested a boundary using the -Penistone railway line south from Pinfold Bridge then following the Tanyard Brook, to encircle and unite the village in Kirklees.

48. Gunthwaite and Ingbirchworth Parish Council suggested reverting to the original parish boundaries.

49. We considered all the information available to us and decided that Barnsley's suggestion would achieve the unification of the village in Kirklees with minimum disruption. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.

(c) Bank End Lane

50. Kirklees had suggested a realignment of its boundary, to bring the junction of Bank End Lane and Holin House Lane into its area. The Borough stated that its suggestion would simplify highway maintenance and eliminate a salient. We agreed that Kirklees' suggestion would help to facilitate highway maintenance and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

(d) Litherop Lane

51. Kirklees had suggested a realignment to the boundary to unite Litherop Lane in Barnsley, in order to clarify the boundary in the area and eliminate a salient. We considered that the suggestion would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

10 INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

(e) Broadstone Road

52. Kirklees had suggested realigning the boundary from the western to the eastern side of Broadstone Road, thereby placing the responsibility for highway maintenance entirely with Barnsley.

53. We took the view, however, that Kirklees had provided insufficient evidence to show that highway maintenance could be significantly improved as a result of such a boundary adjustment. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals for this area.

(f) Deffer Wood

54. Kirklees suggested a realignment of its boundary to unite Deffer Wood in its area.

55. We took the view that the present boundary would not be significantly improved by Kirklees' suggestion, nor would it fully enclose the whole of Deffer Wood in one authority. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal for this area.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE

56. We received no suggestions in respect of Barnsley's boundary with High Peak. We noted that it was a moorland boundary and considered that little would be achieved in terms of improving effective and convenient local government by proposing any change. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals for this area.

11 ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS

57. The letter announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions was published on 30 March 1989. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. The Boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees, Rotherham and High Peak, were asked to publish a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices. Comments were invited by 12 May 1989.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS

58. In response to our draft proposals we received comments from the Metropolitan Boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham ; from the Parish Councils of Barnburgh, Brampton Bierlow and Denby Dale ; and from two members of the public.

FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS AND FINAL PROPOSALS

59. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 we have carefully considered all the representations made to us and in the light of this consideration we felt it appropriate to issue further draft proposals in respect of Barnsley's boundaries with Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham. These further draft proposals, and the reasons which led us to make them, are discussed in the appropriate paragraphs below. We also set out below our final proposals in respect of those issues which were not the subject of further draft proposals.

60. Our further draft proposals letters were issued on 29 September 1989 and 13 August 1990. The local authorities concerned were asked to ensure that the letters received the same publicity as our original draft proposals. Copies of our letters were also sent to all those who had made representations to us on

12 the issues covered by our further draft proposals. Comments were invited by 30 November 1989 and 30 September 1990 respectively.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY, WAKEFIELD AND DONCASTER

(a) Burnt Wood Lane

61. Barnsley and Doncaster both supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary around the edge of a field adjacent to Howell Wood and to unite all of Howell Wood Country Park, with its Rangers Office and car park, in Doncaster. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER

(a) Spry Lane

62. Both Doncaster and Barnsley supported our draft proposal to transfer Spry Lane and an area of agricultural land to Doncaster, and to remove an anomaly at the northern end of Spry Lane. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(b) Chapel Lane

63. Both Doncaster and Barnsley supported our draft proposal to transfer Chapel Lane from Doncaster to Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(c) Bluebell Wood

64. Both Barnsley and Doncaster supported our draft proposal to transfer Bluebell Wood from Doncaster to Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

13 (d) Hickleton Colliery Tip

65. Both Barnsley and Doncaster supported our draft proposal to transfer the tipping area of Hickleton Colliery from Doncaster to Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final. (e) Pickhills Avenue

66. Both Barnsley and Doncaster supported our draft proposal to unite two properties on Pickhills Avenue in Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(f) Goldthorpe Tip

67. Both Barnsley and Doncaster supported our draft proposal to unite Goldthorpe Tip in Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(g) Green Lane, Barnburgh

68. Both Barnsley and Doncaster opposed our draft proposal to put Green Lane, Barnburgh wholly into Doncaster.

69. Barnsley had carried out a survey among residents of Green Lane the results of which, the Council suggested, did not show sufficient justification for change. Doncaster objected to the draft proposal on the grounds that it did not want to receive large areas of derelict land from Barnsley. Barnburgh Parish Council and a member of the public had suggested that a larger scale of transfer would be desirable and would help eliminate environmental problems associated with a maggot farm.

70. Having considered the responses from Barnsley and Doncaster, we were persuaded that, notwithstanding Barnburgh Parish Council's earlier submission, the residents of Green Lane as whole were against a transfer to Doncaster. We consequently decided to withdraw our draft proposal. However, we felt that there was still a need to simplify the highway maintenance arrangements in this

14 area. We took the view that this could be achieved by placing Green Lane, in its entirety, within Barnsley's area and we issued a further draft proposal to that effect.

71. In response, Barnsley supported our further draft proposal and no objections to it were received. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(h) Bolton Common

72. Both Barnsley and Doncaster supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary to the mid course of the River Dearne. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY, DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM

73. Barnsley, Dpncaster and Rotherham supported our draft proposal to use an alignment along the Pontefract - Rotherham railway line from Bolton Bridge, to clarify the Doncaster - Rotherham boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND ROTHERHAM

(a) River Dearne/Knoll Beck

74. Both Barnsley and Rotherham supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary to the mid-course of the River Dearne and Knoll Beck to provide a readily identifiable boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(b) Wath Concentration Yard

75. Both Barnsley and Rotherham supported our draft proposal to relocate the boundary to a footpath north of Wath Concentration Yard to provide a more readily identifiable boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

15 (c) Knoll Beck

76. Both Barnsley and Rotherham supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary to the current course of the Knoll Beck to provide a readily identifiable boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(d) Cortonwood Colliery Site

77. Both Barnsley and Rotherham supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary at the colliery site to simplify the administration of the area and to improve clarity. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(e) Elsecar Tip

78. Barnsley supported our draft proposal to unite Elsecar Tip in Barnsley. Rotherham opposed it on the grounds that two-thirds of the tip was already in Rotherham and that reclamation work had stabilised it. Rotherham also stated that any further development of the area would be in conjunction with Cortonwood Colliery in Rotherham. They also pointed out that our draft proposal was based on unsuitable boundary features that would shortly become unidentifiable.

79. We considered that Rotherham's objections were justified. We therefore decided to withdraw our draft proposal and to issue a further draft proposal to unite the tip in Rotherham - but excluding the houses on Wath Road as their links appear to be with Barnsley.

80. Rotherham supported our further draft proposal. Barnsley opposed it and asked us to reinstate our original draft proposal. We reconsidered the boundary in this area and remain of the opinion that, as the larger part of the Tip is currently in Rotherham it should be united in that authority. We have decided therefore to confirm our further draft proposal as final.

16 (f) Water Lane

81. Rotherham supported our draft proposal for a boundary realignment to simplify highway maintenance. Barnsley indicated that it had no objection. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(g) Broadcar Road

82. Rotherham supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary to follow Broadcar Road. Barnsley indicated that it had no objection. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(h) Hood Hill Farm/AST 35

83. Rotherham supported our draft proposal to unite Hood Hill Farm in Rotherham and to transfer a stretch of the A6135 from Rotherham to Barnsley. Barnsley indicated that it had no objection. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND KIRKLEES IN WEST YORKSHIRE

(a) Fall Edge Lane

84. Kirklees accepted our draft proposal to realign the boundary in this area in order to simplify highway maintenance. Barnsley indicated it had no objection. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(b) Upper Denby

85. Both Barnsley and Kirklees supported our draft proposal to unite Upper Denby in Kirklees. However, Barnsley and Denby Dale Parish Council commented that our draft proposal did not follow the clearest line available and suggested following a track on Gunthwaite Top. We agreed that the suggested amendment would

17 improve the clarity of the boundary and decided to issue a further draft proposal taking it into account.

86. Our further draft proposal was supported by both Barnsley and Kirklees. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(c) Bank End Lane

87. Both Barnsley and Kirklees supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary to simplify highway maintenance and eliminate an awkwardly shaped salient.

88. A resident of the area suggested that a small amendment to our draft proposal would prevent his property being split by the boundary and so would simplify local government administration. The resident's suggestion was supported by Kirklees.

89. We agreed that it was undesirable to split properties even though in this case only one property was involved. We therefore decided to issue a further draft proposal incorporating the resident1s suggestion.

90. Our further draft proposal was supported by both Barnsley and Kirklees. We have consequently decided to confirm it as final.

(d) Litherop Lane

91. Both Kirklees and Barnsley supported our draft proposal to transfer Litherop Lane and a salient to Barnsley. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(c) Broadstone Road

92. We noted that Barnsley had no objection to our interim decision to propose no change in this area. Kirklees, however, objected and asked for its original suggestion to be reconsidered. It believed that this would eliminate inefficiencies in highway

18 93. We accepted Kirklees1 arguments and decided to withdraw our interim decision and to issue a draft proposal based on Kirklees suggestion to transfer the stretch of road from Kirklees to Barnsley. Both Kirklees and Barnsley supported our draft proposal. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

(f) Deffer Wood

94. Both Kirklees and Barnsley supported our decision to make no proposals at Deffer Wood. We have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

DECISION TO MAKE NO PROPOSAL

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE

95. We received-no comments in respect of our interim decision to propose no change to the boundary between Barnsley and High Peak. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

CONCLUSIONS

96. Our final proposals and decisions on the review of the boundaries of Barnsley are set out:

in paragraph 61, in respect of the Barnsley/Wakefield/Doncaster boundary;

in paragraphs 62-72, in respect of the Barnsley/Doncaster boundary;

in paragraph 73, in respect of the Barnsley/Doncaster/Rotherham boundary;

in paragraphs 74-83, in respect of the Barnsley/Rotherham boundary;

19 in paragraphs 84-94 in respect of the Barnsley/Kirklees boundary; and

in paragraph 95 in respect of the Barnsley/High Peak boundary.

We commend them to you as being apt for securing effective and convenient local government.

PUBLICATION

97. A separate letter is being sent to the Metropolitan Boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham and the Borough of High Peak asking them to deposit copies of this report at their main offices for inspection for a period of six months. They are also asked to put notices to that effect on public notice boards. Arrangements have been made for similar notices to appear in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in this matter and that it now falls to you to make an order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than six weeks from the date our final proposals are submitted to you. Copies of this report are also being sent to all those who received our draft and further draft proposals letters of 30 March 1989, 29 September 1989 and 13 August 1990, and to those who have made written representations.

20 Sicmed G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

PROFESSOR K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Secretary 21 February 1991 A/VA/EX A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW

BARNSLEY MB

AFFECTING DONCASTER MB AND ROTHERHAM MB IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE, KIRKLEES MB AND CITY OF WAKEFIELD IN WEST YORKSHIRE and HIGH IN DERBYSHIRE FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other boundary dividing areas

Produced by the Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM CITY OF WAKEFIELD WEST YORKSHIRE

Map II Map 12 DONCASTER KIRKLEES MB MB

BARNSLEY MB

-Map 8»Map 6

I Map 7 Map 5

ROTHERHAM MB CITY OF

SOUTH YORKSHIRE (C) Crown Copyright 1991

DONCASTER MB

IBARNSLEY MB DONCASTER MB

^°°^:^^g^1Arefer^:K>:v| QArp Dn ril^M£fi'\'•£

See Map 4j\ /"., .

"i-i r^i ••••i^M1 p L_» -—-^— - - , A^sP^^SESj, -" ,^^r- t^55B

ir Boltonidporv-Dearne V; / V/ /

BARNSLEY MBlf

- \ Bolton Commo\n

ROTHERHAM DONCASTER MBI

IBARNSLEY MB

ROTHERHAM MB BARNSLEY MB I

RQTHERHAM MB| BARNSLEY MB

ROTHERHAM MB|

'LV&V:--: ROTHERHAM MB

SHEFFIELD 2 lg Crown Cooyflgtit 1991 BARNSLEY MB

BARNSLEY MB BARNSLEY MB

Crown Copyright 1991 ~~-^ CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES ri^x e

Map Area From To No. Ref.

West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County A City of Wakefield Doncaster MB South Kirkby and Moorthorpe CP Clayton with Frickley CP South Kirkby Ward Richmond Ward Ii West Yorkshire Bounty South Yorkshire County City of Wakefield Barnsley MB South Kirkby and Moorthorpe CP Great Houghton CP South Kirkby Ward Darfield Ward

Barnsley MB Doncaster MB A Non parished area Clayton with Frickley CP Darfield Ward Richmond Ward Doncaster MB Barnsley MB 2 B Clayton with Frickley CP Great Hougnton CP Richmond Ward Darfield Ward Barnsley MB Doncaster MB C Great Houghton CP Clayton with Frickley CP Darfield Ward Richmond Ward Doncaster MB Barnsley MB A Clayton with Frickley CP Non parished area Richmond Ward Dearne Ward Doncaster MB Barnsley MB B C Hoofon Pagnell CP Non parished area 3 Richmond Ward Dearne Thurnscoe Ward Doncaster MB Barnsley MB D Hickleton CP Non parished area Richmond Ward Dearne Thurnscoe Ward E Doncaster MB Barnsley MB Hickleton CP Non parished area B Richmond Ward Dearne South Ward 4 Doncaster MB Barnsley MB A Barnburgh CP Non parished area Richmond Ward Dearne South Ward Barnsley MB Doncaster MB 5 B Non parished area CP Dearne South Ward Richmond Ward 567 A 6 7 C Barnsley MB Rotherham MB Non parished area No change 6 EG J Dearne South Ward Wath Ward LN BDF 6 H 1 K Rotherham MB Barnsley MB Non parished area No change Wath Ward Dearne South Ward 7 B 7 DEG Barnsley MB Rotherham MB Non parished area No change 8 A D South Ward Wath Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

Area Map From To No. Ref.

7 F Rotherham MB Barnsley MB Non parished area No change 8 C Woih Ward Wombwell South Ward •7 Bornsley MB Rotherham MB f Non parished area No change 8 F Wombwell South Ward Brampton, Melton and Wentworth Ward

Barnsley MB Rotherham MB Non parished area Brampton Bierlow CP n Wombwell South Ward Brampton, Meiton and Wentworth Ward

B Rotherham MB Barnsley MB r Brampton Bierlow CP Non parished area Brampton, Melton and Wombwell South Ward 9 E Wentworth Ward Barnsley MB Rotherham MB F Non parished area Brampton Bierlow CP East Ward Brampton, Melton and Wentworth Ward

Bornsley MB No change G Non parished area No change Hoyland East Ward Wombwell South Ward

Barnsley MB Rotherham MB A Tankersley CP Wentworth CP Penistone East Ward Brampton, Melton and Wentworth Ward

Rotherham MB Barnsley MB Wentworth CP Tankersley CP Brampton, Melton and Penistone East Ward Wentworth Ward 10 Barnsley MB Rotherham MB Non parished area Wentworth CP E Hoyland East Ward Brampton, Melton and Wentworth Ward

Rotherham MB Barnsley MB Wentworth CP Non parished area Brampton, Melton and Hoyland East Ward Wentworth Ward CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

Area Map From To No. Ref.

West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County Kirklees MB Barnsley MB Denby Dole CP Dunford CP Denby Dale Ward Penistone West Ward

South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Barnsley MB Kirklees MB 12 B Gunthwaite and Ingbirchworth CP Denby Dale CP Penistone West Ward Denby Dale Ward

R A C South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Barnsley MB Kirklees MB 14 High Hoyland CP Denby Dale CP A D Penistone East Ward Denby Dale Ward

R n West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County Kirklees MB Barnsley MB Denby Dale CP High Hoyland CP 14 C Denby Dale Ward Penistone East Ward C

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES

BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY WAKEFIELD AND DONCASTER

Burnt Wood Lane Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 61 Howell Wood at Howell Wood Map 1 County Park in Doncaster

BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AN DONCASTER

Spry Lane Minor realignment to transfer Paragraph 62 Spry Lane and an area of Map 2 agricultural land to Doncaster

Chapel Lane Minor realignment to transfer Paragraph 63 Chapel Lane from Doncaster to Map 3 Barnsley.

Bluebell Wood Minor realignment to transfer Paragraph 64 Bluebell Wood from Doncaster Map 3 to Barnsley.

Hickleton Colliery Minor realignment to transfer Paragraph 65 Tip the tipping area of Hickleton Map 3 Colliery from Doncaster to Barnsley.

Pickhills Avenue Minor realignment to unite to Paragraph 66 split properties in Barnsley. Map 3

Goldthorpe Tip Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 67 Goldthorpe Tip in Barnsley Map 4

Green Lane Minor realignment to place Paragraphs 68 Barnburgh Green Lane entirely in 71 . Barnsley. Map 4

Bolton Common Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 72. to midstream course of the Map 5 River Dearne through Bolton Common. BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY, DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM

Barnsley/Doncaster Realignment of boundary along Paragraph 73 Rotherham the Pontefract - Rotherham Map 5 railway line from Bolton Bridge to clarify Doncaster Rotherham boundary.

BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND ROTHERHAM

River Dearne/ Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 74 Knoll Beck to the midstream course of the Map 6 rivers.

Wath Concentration Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 75 Yard to a footpath north of Wath Map 7 Concentration Yard.

Knoll Beck Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 76 to the current course of Map 8 Knoll Beck.

Cortonwood Minor realignment to redraw Paragraph 77. Colliery Site boundary at the Colliery site. Map 9

Elsecar Tip Minor realignment to unite tip Paragraphs 78 Rotherham but exclude houses on 80. Wath Road Map 9

Water Lane Minor realignment to amend Paragraph 81 boundary at Water Lane. Map 10

Broadcar Road Realignment of boundary along Paragraph 82 Broadcar Road. Map 10

Hood Hill Farm Realignment of boundary to Paragraph 83 exclude A6135 from Rotherham Map 10 but unite Hood Hill in Rotherham. BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND KIRKLEES

Fall Edge Lane Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 84 at Fall Edge Lane to simplify Map 12 highway maintenance.

Upper Denby Minor realignment of boundary Paragraph 85 to unite Upper Denby in Map 12 Kirklees.

Bank End Lane Minor realignment to simplify Paragraphs 87 highway maintenance eliminate 90. salient and unite one Map 13 residential property.

Litherop Lane Minor realignment to eliminate Paragraph 91. a salient at Litherop Lane. Map 14

Broadstone Road Minor realignment to transfer Paragraphs 92 maintenance of road from 93 Kirklees to Barnsley. Map 11