No. 5H2 Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties. COUNTY OF STAFFORDSHIRE 30UNDAR ES W TH CHESHIRE DERBYSHIRE WA RW CKSHIIR AND REFG RID AN D WORCESTER LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOH ENGLAND 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,. WARWICKSHIRE, AND HEREFORD AND WORCESTER 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 Midlands, Shropshire, 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 West Midlands 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 Kidsgrove. 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. Mow Cop 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, Odd Rode 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. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council said it had decided that no comments be offered to the Commission on this matter, while Biddulph 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.