No. 5H2

Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties. COUNTY OF 30UNDAR ES W TH WA RW CKSHIIR AND REFG RID AN D WORCESTER LOCAL

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOH RETORT NO •5112 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE FRICS FSVA

Members Mr K F J Ennals CB

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany PATTEN.PPD

THE RT. HON. CHRIS PATTEN HP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES COUNTY OF STAFFORDSHIRE: BOUNDARIES WITH CHESHIRE, DERBYSHIRE,. , AND

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

1. On 26 July 1985 we wrote to Staffordshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the County under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to all the principal local authorities and parishes in Staffordshire, and in the adjoining counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire, West , , Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester and Leicestershire; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to the Members of Parliament with constituency interests and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition copies were sent to those government departments with an interest; regional health authorities; public utilities in the area; the English Tourist Board; the editors of the Municipal Journal and Local Government Chronicle; and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The County Councils were requested to co-operate as necessary with each other, and with the District Councils concerned, to assist us in publicising 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 County Councils were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of the police and to the services in respect of which they have a statutory function, such as the administration of justice.

3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the adjoining counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable - and, if so, what they 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. This report deals only with Staffordshire's boundaries with the Counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire and Hereford and Worcester. We received submissions about possible changes to Staffordshire's boundaries from the County Councils of Staffordshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire and Warwickshire, most of the District Councils in Staffordshire and some of those in surrounding counties. A considerable number of letters were also received from parish councils and members of the public. The submissions made to us concerning Staffordshire's boundary with the County of Shropshire were dealt with in our Report No. 573 dated 23 February 1989 on the review of that County. The review of Staffordshire's boundary with the County of Leicestershire was dealt with in our Report No. 577 dated 20 July 1989 on the review of that County. The submissions made to us in connection with the boundary between Staffordshire and the County of are being considered in the review of that County which is now under way.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND CHESHIRE

Red Bull and Woodlands

5. Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, supported by Staffordshire County Council, suggested the transfer from Cheshire of two small residential areas which it regarded as integral parts of the town of . The Borough Council pointed out that properties in the Woodlands area were accessible only from Staffordshire and were entirely separated by a canal from the other residential areas in the parish of which they were presently a part. Cheshire County Council and Congleton Borough Council were opposed to this suggestion, arguing that there was no real separation and that little would be gained from changes which, moreover, were not wanted by the residents concerned.

6." We saw no case for change in Red Bull which, though close to Kidsgrove, was equally closely linked to adjoining settlements in Cheshire. However, there did seem a valid case for change in the Woodlands area which could be more conveniently served by Staffordshire local authorities. We therefore decided to propose that the Woodlands area be brought into Staffordshire.

Mow Cop

7. occupies an unusual geographical position on a high spur at the southern end of Congleton Edge. Staffordshire County Council drew attention to the division of this village by the county boundary but decided not to seek any change. (Roughly three fifths of the village is in Staffordshire and two fifths in Cheshire). No other local authority had referred to it although we were aware, from correspondence sent to us by one of the three local MPs, of local opposition to change from the Cheshire side. Before coming to any conclusion, we decided to seek further information about the provision of services, the wishes of the people, the sense of community in the area, and about any advantages there might be in uniting the village within one county. We wrote accordingly to both County Councils and copies were sent to the district and parish councils involved. The two County Councils, and Congleton'and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Councils, provided a joint response which said these authorities were unanimous that the present arrangements should stand. The statement gave brief details of the services provided to the Mow Cop community (including Dales Green in Staffordshire and Mount Pleasant in Cheshire), and said that there was no evidence of insurmountable problems in the pattern of community life or the provision of services and that there was a "mood of fierce local opposition," on both sides of the boundary, to any change. It cited a petition against change, signed by over 900 people on the Cheshire side of the boundary in 1985, which had been submitted to Congleton Borough Council.

8. The joint statement quoted Kidsgrove Town Council as saying that its members were quite happy with the status quo as there had been no problems in the past - and as none was anticipated they would oppose any alteration in the Mow Cop area. The statement also quoted Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council's resolution that it "had no opinion regarding any change in the boundary in the Mow Cop area and would expect the Boundary Commission to respect the wishes of the local residents." Of the other local authorities consulted, Parish Council (Cheshire) felt that the Mow Cop ridge formed a natural boundary between the two counties and the fact that the boundary split Mow Cop village in two was not of any great significance from a local government point of view. District Council said it had decided that no comments be offered to the Commission on this matter, while Town Council thought that the inhabitants of Mow Cop should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they wished to be united within either Staffordshire or Cheshire.

9. We thought these replies provided insufficient information, in terms of the guidelines set out in DOE Circular 12/84, on which to base a decision. We therefore invited both County Councils to provide further information and an opinion as to whether a separate parish of Mow Cop would be advantageous to the community. The replies indicated that there was no single local plan for the area. With the exception of libraries and fire services, where Cheshire and Staffordshire respectively served the major part, each side provided county and district services for its own part of the community up to the boundary, although there appeared to be some informal co-operation for snow clearing. We noted however that 35 children in all crossed the boundary to go to school in the adjoining county.

10. With regard to the desirability of a separate parish, Staffordshire made no comment. Cheshire said it was most unlikely that forming one parish at Mow Cop would lead to an improvement in the delivery of local government services, but if it were done, the parish of Odd Rode would continue to be viable. Cheshire County Council clearly favoured the status quo while Staffordshire County Council said it hoped its additional information would enable us to come to a conclusion satisfactory to all concerned.

11. We concluded that Mow Cop, Mount Pleasant and Dales Green do form a single, isolated community for which services would i probably be more effectively provided if it lay wholly within Staffordshire, the county with which it appears to have the closer economic and social ties, joined as it is to Kidsgrove by a thread of development. On the other hand we had received no local support for such views and there was no apparent desire for change either on the part of the authorities or the residents. Indeed the only direct expression of residents' wishes we received was one letter drawing attention to the poor condition of a stretch of road crossing the boundary.

12. We therefore had to balance the probability of more effective and convenient local government against the lack of any local desire for change, and the continued opposition of the authorities on the Cheshire side. In the absence of any clearer appreciation of the extent of the practical benefits to be gained from uniting the community, we reached an interim decision to make no proposals, but said we would welcome any indication of public support for uniting Mow Cop as one community, with a parish council of its own. Conaleton Edge

13. The transfer to Cheshire of seven properties which were only accessible from that county had been initially suggested by Staffordshire Moorlands Council but had not in the event been put formally to us. Cheshire County Council said that the only practical problem - that of refuse collection - could be solved by an agency agreement. We thought there might be a case for change on broader operational grounds, but decided that in this instance the advantages of the clearly defined boundary formed by the 'Staffordshire Way' along the ridge in this area outweighed the other considerations, and therefore made an interim decision to make no proposals.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE

Rivers Dove and Trent

14. All the principal local authorities were agreed that the long county boundary formed by the Dove and Trent should be maintained but that changes should be made wherever the boundary and the course of the river had diverged. Although one parish council objected on the grounds that a planned picnic site would be divided between two counties, we were in no doubt that such well- established and clearly identifiable boundaries serve a useful purpose and that the changes needed to restore the integrity of the river boundaries should be canvassed. We therefore made draft proposals accordingly.

Edingale and Clifton Campville

15. Derbyshire County Council and District Council submitted that the River Mease should be adopted as an identifiable boundary from its1confluence with the Trent: this would entail the transfer to Derbyshire of most of the parish of Edingale and a small area of Clifton Campville. They argued that this would reflect the pattern of community life. Staffordshire County Council and District Council contended, however, that the evidence demonstrated stronger links with Staffordshire and that the Mease as a potential boundary was not comparable with the Dove or Trent. The Staffordshire local authorities also said that these changes would not improve the provision of local government and associated services and, in some instances, would make them worse.

16. We were persuaded by the arguments from the Staffordshire local authorities and were impressed by the evidently strong local opposition to change. We therefore decided that the existing boundary should remain.

Burton upon Trent

17. We noted that the existing boundary ensured for the most part that the built-up area of Burton was in Staffordshire but that it spilled over in several areas. Initially, none of the principal local authorities had referred to these anomalies in any detail, but following a letter from Bretby Parish Council (in Derbyshire) drawing attention to boundary difficulties in its area, we invited the County and District Councils to comment. This resulted in a substantial measure of agreement on the relatively minor adjustments required and we decided to publish these suggestions as our draft proposals, subject to an adjustment at Newton Leys/Cherry Leys to secure a better-defined boundary. In the one area where there were differences of opinion - Moat Bank, Bretby Lane and Ashby Road - we preferred the more logical adjustment suggested by the Staffordshire authorities, designed to bring all the properties on the Moat Bank Estate and along Ashby Road into Staffordshire; but we amended it to take account of additional development on the estate. We considered however, that the houses with access to Ashby Road East should remain in Derbyshire.

18. Derbyshire County Council and South Derbyshire and District Councils suggested a boundary revision near Stapenhill designed to place the Model Dairy Farm (presently divided between two counties) wholly in Staffordshire. We accepted the need for change, but, on the basis of advice from Ordnance Survey, considered it would be better to use the proposed new road just to the east of the farm as far as a point lying due east of the nearest visible feature on the present boundary, and therefore proposed this adjustment. We were aware, however, that the line adopted -as a draft proposal was not ideal and that extensive development on the Staffordshire side might require further adjustments to be made. We therefore invited the local authorities involved to suggest a better-defined boundary if one could be identified.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE

19. Tamworth Borough Council submitted a detailed scheme for the transfer to the Borough of a large area of west of the recently constructed M42. The Borough Council argued that the area had a natural affinity with Tamworth which was the most convenient centre for shopping, employment, social and medical services; it suggested that residents would be more effectively served in local government terms from Tamworth. The Borough Council said that further residential development across and beyond the existing county boundary was unlikely to be needed but pointed out that one industrial site straddled the boundary in the south and that the proposed employment area at Stonydelph would increase pressure for development in that area up to the line of the M42.

20. In a supplementary statement, Tamworth Borough Council drew attention to recent developments in the current reviews of the Staffordshire and Warwickshire Structure Plans; in particular, it suggested that the Secretary of State's proposed modifications to the Warwickshire Plan, to ease restraint on development west of the M42, added weight to the Borough Council's case for the transfer of this area to Staffordshire. The Borough Council also told us of a planned motorway service station which would straddle the present Warwickshire/Staffordshire boundary. 21. Tamworth Borough Council's case was opposed by Warwickshire County Council and by North Warwickshire Borough Council. They argued that there was no close community of interest between Tamworth and the area west of the M42 and that local government and associated services would not be improved by change. Staffordshire and Warwickshire County Councils both considered that it would t>e premature to anticipate planning decisions on future development by moving the boundary up to the motorway.

22. We were not convinced by Tamworth Borough Council's case and accepted the County Councils' view that it was "premature". We also noted the strong opposition in Warwickshire to the changes suggested; a substantial number of representations against any change to the boundary had been received from local residents and parish councils. We concluded there were no grounds for making proposals for cnange in this area; we could not, propose boundary changes in anticipation of strategic planning decisions. If there were a need for change as the result of the building of a motorway service station, a principal area review could be undertaken subsequently. We noted that the final form of the Warwickshire Structure Plan, which your predecessor had approved, had eased restraint on development on only a limited area between Tamworth and the M42 to leave room for the expansion of the Stonydelph Industrial Estate, if required, while maintaining largely intact the gap between Tamworth and Poleswortn/Dordon.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER

23. District Council and District Council each suggested minor changes to the boundary to the north of the village of Kingsford, in Hereford and Worcester. South Staffordshire District Council, supported by Staffordshire County Council and Parish Council, suggested the transfer to Staffordshire of an uninhabited area north of Bird's Barn Lane in order to produce a better defined boundary. Wyre Forest District Council proposed the transfer to Hereford and Worcester of properties along Kingsford Lane. Wyre Forest District Council also said that one property was divided by the existing boundary and that their suggestion would realign the boundary along a permanent feature. We decided that both suggestions had merit and issued draft proposals accordingly.

PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

24. We announced our draft proposals and interim decisions in a letter to Staffordshire County Council dated 28 March 1988. Copies of the letter were sent to the County Councils of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Hereford and Worcester, and Warwickshire. The five County Councils were asked to publish notices giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions and to post copies of them at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection for eight weeks. Comments were invited by 23 May 1988. Copies of our letter were also sent to the District and Parish Councils concerned, and to those who appeared to us to have an interest in the review of Staffordshire's boundaries with Cheshire, Derbyshire, Hereford and Worcester and Warwickshire.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

25. In response to our letter of 28 March 1988, we received representations from Staffordshire County Council and the County Councils of Cheshire, Derbyshire, and Hereford and Worcester; the District Councils of Wyre Forest, East Staffordshire and South Derbyshire; the Boroughs Councils of Congleton and Newcastle- under-Lyme and also from five Parish Councils and 5 members of the public.

10 THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND CHESHIRE

Red Bull and Woodlands

26. We received no comments regarding our interim decision to make no proposals for the transfer of the Red Bull area and have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

27. Cheshire County Council and Congleton Borough Council both objected to the proposed change in the Woodlands area on the grounds that there was no real separation between Woodlands and the.Congleton District; both Councils pointed out that the area formed an integral part of the South Cheshire green belt and it was therefore important, from a planning control point of view, to continue to restrict development in the area. Newcastle-under- Lyme Borough Council supported our draft proposal for the Woodlands area, while Parish Council, supported by Town Council, expressed their preference to remain in Cheshire. A survey was enclosed from the residents of properties involved expressing a similar preference.

28. Our draft proposal to transfer the Woodlands area to Staffordshire was based on the grounds that it would be more effectively served by the Staffordshire local authorities. No new evidence has been submitted by any of the councils making representations that this is not the case. We did not consider that Cheshire County Council's arguments provided sufficient justification to change our draft proposal. Our concern is to formulate proposals as to what is best for effective and convenient local government taking account only of existing and expected development. There was no indication that other development in the area was expected. In the circumstances we have decided to confirm our draft proposal for the Woodlands area as final.

11 Mow Cop

29. We received only three comments in response to our invitation recorded in paragraph 12 above, none of which favoured change. We therefore considered that as no new evidence had been put forward, there was no reason to depart from our interim decision, which we accordingly confirmed as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE

Rivers Dove and Trent

30. Derbyshire County Council and South Derbyshire District Council both welcomed the proposal to re-establish the Rivers Dove and Trent as a clearly defined boundary. South Derbyshire District Council very properly pointed out, however, that the transfer of two small parcels of land, one at Foston and Scropton, and one, a very small piece of land, south of Walton-on-Trent would involve transfers between parishes in the same county, which were outside the scope of the review. We therefore decided to withdraw our proposals in respect of these areas, but otherwise to confirm our draft proposals as final.

Burton-upon-Trent: Moat Bank. Bretby Lane and Ashby Road

31. We considered representations on the proposed boundary in this area from Derbyshire County Council, South Derbyshire District Council and a local resident affected. Derbyshire County Council and South Derbyshire District Council suggested an adjustment to the proposal was necessary at the rear of nos. 4 and 6 Bretby Lane to bring the curtilages of those properties wholly within Derbyshire. South Derbyshire District Council also said that the area of land proposed for transfer at the rear of no. 50 Moat Bank was excessive and should be reduced. The owner of no. 50 Moat Bank asked that the boundary be situated on the northern side of the footpath adjacent to his property to avoid the

12 necessity of two councils being responsible for the maintenance of the footpath.

32. We therefore decided to publish a further draft proposal to realign the boundary to include (a) the entire rear curtilages of numbers 4 and 6 Bretby Lane in Derbyshire, and (b) the footpath adjacent to number 50 Moat Bank in Staffordshire.

Burton-upon-Trent: Model Dairy Farm

33. Given the general agreement that the proposed new boundary in this vicinity was not ideal, we considered alternatives proposed by the Staffordshire and Derbyshire County Councils and by the East Staffordshire and South Derbyshire District Councils. Ordnance Survey confirmed that potential boundary features on the ground close to the Model Dairy Farm are being progressively eroded by development, and at our request produced an alternative boundary utilising the nearest identifiable feature.

34. As this alternative would involve transferring a larger area to Staffordshire than the original proposal, the authorities concerned were consulted. Derbyshire County Council and South Derbyshire District Council put forward a further alternative, based on the Ordnance Survey proposal but transferring less land while nevertheless adhering to clearly defined hedge, track and fence features. We decided to accept this, with minor realignments of the existing boundary suggested by Ordnance Survey, and to publish a further draft proposal.

Burton-upon-Trent: Woodland Road/Manor Crescent Area

35. We considered a suggestion from Derbyshire County Council that a newly developed restaurant site should be transferred to Staffordshire in order to realign the boundary along the built-up area on the edge of the South Derbyshire Green Belt. We noted that this would provide a clearly defined boundary, and decided to issue a draft proposal accordingly.

13 Edingale and Clifton Campville

36. We decided to reverse our interim decision to make no proposals in the Clifton Campville area, as we accepted the suggestion by Derbyshire County Council and South Derbyshire District Council that the River Mease would provide a clearly defined boundary to replace one that in parts had become defaced. We decided to issue a draft proposal accordingly.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND WARWICKSHIRE

37. We received no comments on our interim decision to make no proposals for change in this area, and we therefore confirmed it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STAFFORDSHIRE AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER

Kingsford Area

38. Hereford and Worcester County Council and the Wyre Forest District Council both supported our decision for an alteration to the boundary in the Kingsford area. Staffordshire County Council had no comments to make; however, we noted the affinity with Kinver in Staffordshire claimed by three of the six residents of the properties proposed for transfer to Hereford and Worcester. The representations from members of the public referred specifically to the residents of the Kingsford area looking to Kinver to meet their educational, medical, social and general commercial needs. Also emergency vehicles only have to travel two miles from the Staffordshire side but five miles from the Hereford and Worcester side. We therefore decided (a) to confirm our draft proposal to transfer an agricultural area north west of Kingsford from Hereford and Worcester to Staffordshire, and (b) to issue a modified draft proposal to retain the properties facing on to Kingsford Lane in Staffordshire and to place the only divided property, "Rock View Cottage", wholly in Staffordshire.

14 PUBLICATION OF OUR FURTHER AND MODIFIED DRAFT PROPOSALS

39. Our further and modified draft proposals were published on 27 June 1989 in a letter to Staffordshire County Council. Copies were sent to all those who had received a copy of our letter of 28 March 1988 and those who had made representations to us. Staffordshire County Council was asked to arrange, in conjunction with the other County Councils affected, for the publication of a notice giving details of our further and modified draft proposals and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. The County Councils were also asked to place copies of our proposals letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 22 August 1989.

RESPONSE TO FURTHER AND MODIFIED DRAFT PROPOSALS

40. Responses were received from Hereford and Worcester County Council, Derbyshire County Council, Wyre Forest District Council, South Derbyshire District Council and East Staffordshire District Council.

41. Of the five local authorities which replied, Hereford and Worcester County Council, Derbyshire County Council and Wyre Forest District Council stated they had no comments in respect of our further draft proposals affecting Staffordshire's boundary with Hereford and Worcester. East Staffordshire District Council and South Derbyshire District Council supported our further and modified draft proposals. We have therefore decided to confirm as final our further and modified draft proposals and interim decisions which were not affected by subsequent proposals.

42. We are satisfied that the changes set out above are desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we propose them accordingly.

15 PUBLICATION '

43. A separate letter enclosing copies of this report is being sent to the County Councils of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, and Hereford and Worcester asking them, as necessary, to deposit copies of it at their main offices for inspection over a six-month period. The County Councils are asked to co-operate in putting notices to this effect on public notice-boards and in the local press. The text of the notices will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the 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 they are submitted to you. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received our consultation letters and to those who made comments.

LS SIGNED: G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

J G POWELL (Deputy Chairman)

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

S T GARRISH Secretary 13 December 1989

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

STAFFORDSHIRE

AFFECTING CHESHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary Proposed County Boundary Existing other Boundary Proposed other Boundary

Produced by the Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, LOCATION DIAGRAM

CHESHIRE

DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

EICESTERSH1RE

SHROPSHIRE

WEST WARWICKSHIRE MIDLANDS

Maps I to II SHEET

Maps 12 to 20 SHEET 2

Maps 21 to 27 SHEET 3

HEREFORD Maps 28 and 29 SHEET 4 AND WORCESTER DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

; v\ "K-Su/« ,.-^^v/ m /O ^.- sr\ Final Proposal

nrli C) Crown Copyright r990 «EJU; DERBYSHIRE

Final Proposal Map 2 DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

•• * *. '**». \ \ Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIR

Final Proposal | [Mop 4| DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

in nJ "\ Crowdicote STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal r 5. " / ^^ DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal.

DERBYSHIRE STAFFORDSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE DERBYSHIRE

STAFEORDSHIRE 2

Final Proposal 7/|Mop DERBYSH

STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal ; DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE | Final Proposal Map 17 a DERBYSHIRE

Area FF

STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

Final Proposal

STAFFORDSHIRE Map 18 a DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal Finol Proposal [^ Map 21 tF=

Area A

DERBYSHIRE

Sub Su JSTAFFORDSHIRE m /s$s ^ ^ ^r Final Proposal

C) Crown Copyright 1990 STAFFORDSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE

I Final Proposal | Map 231 / STAFFORDSHIRE

DERBYSHIRE

Map 24 C) Cfown Copyrioht I99O Final Proposal NEW UNSURVEYED BUILDING DETAIL IN THIS AREA

Final Proposal - Map 25\ C) Crown Copyright 1990 STAFFORDSHIRE

t x '// RyclandsC if Lodge

DERBYSHIRE

Final Proposal DERBYSHIRE

^r7^^ \/ STAFFORDSHIRE

Final Proposal •> -" IFPONXAMPVlLLI Cl crown Copyright 1990 " Map 27 STAFFORDSHIRE

-ORD AND WORCESTER

C) Crown Copyright B»o Final Proposal J i 1 CHESHIRE

STAFFORDSHIRE

''I

Final Proposal

. CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES . '-.:..

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO ^•fcf^^" FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Moorlands District High Peak Borough Staffordshire Moorlands District District 1 Holllnsclough CP Harllngton Upper Quarter CP C Longnor CP Hartlngfon Middle Quarter CP B Longnor Word Limestone Peak Ward Longnor Ward Tod ding ton Ward Leek Rural ED Whaley Bridge ED Leek Rural ED Bakewell Rural No 2 ED A Staffordshire Derbyshire A Derbyshire Steffordshke B Staffordshire Moorlands District High Peak Borough Derbyshire Dales District Staffordshire Moorlands District HolHnsclouqh CP Hartlngton Upper Quarter CP Hartlngton Middle Quarter CP Longnor CP Longnor Ward Limestone Peak Ward Toddlnglon Ward Longnor Ward 2 Leek Rural ED Whaley Bridge ED Bakewell Rural No 2 ED Leek Rural ED Derbyshire Staffordshire Staffordshire Derbyshire High Peak Borough Staffordshire Moorlands District Staffordshire Moorlands District Derbyshire Dales District Sheen CP Hartlngton Town Quarter CP E Hartlngton Upper Quarter CP Holllnsclough CP 7I A Limestone Peak Ward Longnor Word Longnor Word Hartlnglon and Ward Whaley Bridge ED Leek Rural CD Leek Rural ED Wlrksworth CD A Derbyshire Staffordshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Doles District B High Peak Borough Staffordshire Moorlands District Staffordshire Moorlands District A Sheen CP Hartlngton Town Quarter CP C Hartlngton Upper Quarter CP Holllnsclough CP 8 Limestone Peak Ward Longnor Ward Longnor Word Hartlngton ond Dovedale Ward D Whaley Bridge ED Leek Rural ED Leek Rural ED Wlrksworth CD •o* Staffordshire Derbyshire .Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Moorlands District High Peak Borough Staffordshire Moorlands District Derbyshire Dales District F CP Hartlngton Upper Quarter CP A Sheen CP Hartington Town Quarter CP G Longnor Word Limestone Peak Word Longnor Ward Hartlngton and Dovedale Ward H Leek Rural ED Whaley Bridge ED Leek Rural ED Wlrksworth ED Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Moorlands District Derbyshire Dales District Staffordshire Moorlands District Derbyshire Dales District A 4 Hofflnsclough CP Harllngton Middle Quarter CP IO CP Thorpe CP C Longnor Ward Toddlnglon Word ' V Water ho uses Ward Hartlngton and Dovedole Ward D Leek Rural CD BaKewell Rural No 2 ED Leek Rural ED Wlrksworth CD Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Dales District Staffordshire Moorlands District Derbyshire Doles District East Staffordshire District A Marling ton Middle Quarter CP Holllngsclough CP II A Norbury and CP Ellastone CP Toddlnglon Ward Longnor Ward Nor bury Word Weaver Word Bake well Rural No 2 ED Leek Rural ED Ashbourne CD Rural ED Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Dales District Staffordshire Moorlands District 5 Hartlngton Middle Quarter CP Longnor CP D Taddlnglon Ward Longnor Ward Bakewell Rural No 2 CD Leek Rural CD ,. CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA | FROM TO FROM TO 1 NO. REF. NO. REF. Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District A CP Norbury and Roston CP 14 G Uttoxeter CP Doveridge CP Churnet Word Norbury Ward Town Ward Doveridge Ward Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Urban ED Ashbourne ED 12 Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Staffordshire B East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District Rocester CP Doveridge CP A Doveridge CP Uttoxeter Rural CP Churnet Ward Doveridge Ward Doveridge Ward Abbey Ward Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED 15 Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire A Derbyshire Dates District East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District M Doveridqe CP Rocester CP B Doveridge CP Marchlngton CP B Doveridqe Ward Churnet Word Doveridge Ward Crown Ward Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED 13 Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District C Uttoxeter Rural CP Doveridqe CP A Morchington CP Doveridge CP Abbey Ward Doveridqe Ward Crown Ward Dpverldqe Ward Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire A Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dates District East Staffordshire District Doveridqe CP Uttoxeter CP 16 B Doveridge CP Marchlnqton CP Doveridge Ward Heath Ward Doveridqe Ward Crown Ward Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Urban ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED

Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Staffordshire East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District Derbyshire Dotes District East Staffordshire District 14 C Uttoxeter CP Doveridge CP C Sudbury CP Marchington CP Heath Ward Doveridge Ward Doveridge Ward Crown Ward Uttoxeter Urban ED Ashbourne ED Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED

Derbyshire >hlre A Staffordshire Derbyshire . . Derbyshire Dales District East Staffordshire District r 1i 7i c East Staffordshire District Derbyshire Dales District Doveridge CP Sudbury CP E Uttoxeter CP - • "^ r H Draycott in the Clay CP Doveridge Ward Town Ward I7a E Crown Ward Doveridge Word .. r K Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Urban ED FK Uttoxeter Rural ED Ashbourne ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM - TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Derbyshire Staffordshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Doles District East Staffordshire District East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District BU \JJ i1 \8j Sudbury CP Draycott In the Cloy CP GG Tutbury CP Hatton CP D L Doveridge Ward Crown Ward I8a Tutbury and Hanbury Ward Hatton Ward 17 Ashbourne ED Uttoxeter Rural ED Dove ED Etwall ED I7a Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District M Droycott in the Cloy CP Foston and Scropton CP A Tutbury CP Hatton CP Crown Ward North West Ward Tutbury and Hanbury Ward Hatton Ward Uttoxeter Rural ED Etwall ED Dove ED Etwall ED

Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire • Staffordshire. 1 71 East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District N Honbury CP Foston and Scropton CP B Hoon CP Tutbury CP 18 Tutbury and Hanbury Word North West Word Hotton Ward Tutbury and Hanbury Ward Dove ED Etwall ED Etwall ED Dove ED

o 7 Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District Rj AAA A East Staffordshire District Foston and Scropton CP Hanbury CP 19 \c^ Marston and Dove CP Tutbury CP vcc North West Ward Tutbury and Hanbury Word Hilton Ward Tutbury and Honbury Word XDD Etwoll CD Dove ED Etwoll ED Dove ED

p . , Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Staffordshire o w East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District ° Y Hanbury CP Foston and Scropton CP D Marston and Dove CP Rolleston on Dove CP ,, BB Tutbury and Hanbury Ward North West Ward Hilton Ward Rolleston Ward 18 U Dove ED Etwall ED Etwall ED Dove ED I8a Derbyshire Staffordshire Staffordshire Derbyshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District East Derbyshire District South Derbyshire District EE Foston and Scropton CP Tutbury CP E Rolleston on Dove CP Marston on Dove CP North West Ward Tutbury and Hanbury Ward Rolleston Ward Hilton Ward Etwall ED Dove ED Dove ED ^^_^__ Etwall ED Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District FF Tutbury CP Foston and Scropton CP Tutbury and Hanbury Ward North West Ward Dove ED Etwall ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA T *V FROM TO NO. REF. Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District A Rolleston on Dove CP Egglnton CP Rolieston Word Hilton Word Dove ED Etwall ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District B Egglnton CP Rolleston on Dove CP Hilton Ward Rolleston Ward Etwoll ED Dove ED

Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District c Stretton CP Egginton CP Stretton Ward Hilton Ward Dove ED Etwall ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire ?r» South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District c. \J D Egglnton CP Stretton CP Hilton Word Stretton Ward Etwall ED Dove ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District Egginton CP non-parished area E^M Hilton Ward Burton Word Etwall ED Burton Town ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District F Newton Solney CP non-parished area Repton Ward Burton Ward Repton ED Burton Town ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District G Egglnfon CP non-parished area Hilton Ward Burton Ward Etwall ED Burton Town ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Derbyshire Staffordshire Staffordshire Derbyshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District A East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District non-parlshed area A Newton Solney CP- non-porlshed area non-parlshed area C Newholl Ward Edgehlll Ward Repton Ward Wlnshlll Word Newhall ED Burton Trent ED Repton ED Burton Tower ED 25 21 Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District B non-parlshed area non-parlshed area B non-parlshed area Newton Solney CP Edgehlll Ward Repton Word Newhall Ward Wlnshlll Ward Burton Trent ED Newhall ED Burton Tower ED Repton ED Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire Dislrict South Derbyshire District A Walton upon Trent CP Borton-under-Needwood CP 22 A Bretby CP non-parlshed area Walton Ward Needwood Ward Repton Ward Wlnshlll Ward Llnton ED Needwood Forest ED Repton ED Burton Tower ED Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Staffordshire East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District Barton-under-Needwood CP Walton upon Trent CP 23 Bretby CP non-porlshed area A B Walton Ward Repton Word Stapenhill Ward Needwood Ward Repton ED Burton Tower ED .Needwood Forest ED Linton ED

Derbyshire Staffordshire Derbyshire Staffordshire South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District A Bretby CP non-parlshed area C Wallon upon Trent CP Barton-under-Needwood CP Repton Word Stapenhill Ward Walton Ward Needwood Word Repton ED Burton Tower ED Linton ED Needwood Forest ED

Staffordshire Derbyshire Derbyshire Staffordshire South Staffordshire District South Derbyshire District South Derbyshire District East Staffordshire District non-parlshed area Bretby CP D Cotton CP Wychnor CP C Edgehlll Ward Repton Ward Walton Word Needwood Word Burton Trent ED Repton ED Llnton ED Needwood Forest ED

Staffordshire Derbyshire "?"7 LIchfleld District South Derbyshire District c. I A Clifton Compvllle CP Netherseal CP Mease Volley Word Netherseal Ward LIchfleld Rural East ED Llnton ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA vtfH FROM TO NO. REF. Hereford and Worcester Staffordshire Wyre Forest District South Derbyshire District 28 Wolvertey and CP Klnver CP B Ward Klnver Ward Cookley, Wolverley and Klnver ED Wrlbbenhol! ED

Cheshire Staffordshire Congleton Borough Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough At % i Church Lowton CP Kidsgrove CP Lawton Ward Kidsgrove Ward 29 Alsager and Lawton ED Kidsgrove ED Staffordshire Cheshire Newcostle-under-Lyme Congjeton Borough Borough u3 Kidsgrove CP Church Lawton CP Kidsgrove Ward Lawton Ward Kidsgrove ED Atsager and Lawlon ED