New electoral arrangements for City Council Draft recommendations November 2018

Translations and other formats To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2018

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Salford? ...... 1 Our proposals for Salford ...... 1 Have your say ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 7 North West Salford ...... 8 South West Salford ...... 12 South East Salford ...... 16 East Salford ...... 20 Central and South Salford ...... 22 North Salford ...... 28 Conclusions ...... 31 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 31 3 Have your say ...... 33 Equalities ...... 34 Appendix A ...... 35 Draft recommendations for ...... 35 Appendix B ...... 37 Outline map ...... 37 Appendix C ...... 38 Submissions received ...... 38 Appendix D ...... 39 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 39

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed • How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called • How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Salford?

4 We are conducting a review of Salford City Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in council elections varies depending on where you live in Salford. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Salford

• Salford should be represented by 60 councillors, the same number as there are now. • Salford should have 20 wards, the same number as there are now. • The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 6 November 2018 to 14 January 2019. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new wards – the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we received.

6 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

1

You have until 14 January 2019 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 33 for how to send us your response.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament.1

8 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair) • Susan Johnson OBE • Peter Maddison QPM • Amanda Nobbs OBE • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Salford are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the city.

What is an electoral review?

10 Our three main considerations are to:

• Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government

11 Our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Consultation

12 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Salford. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the city. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 June 2018 Number of councillors decided 26 June 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 3 September 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 6 November 2018 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 14 January 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 26 March 2019 Publication of final recommendations

3

How will the recommendations affect you?

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

4

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

15 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

16 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

17 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2018 2024 Electorate of Salford 176,853 202,469 Number of councillors 60 60 Average number of 2,948 3,374 electors per councillor

18 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Salford will have electoral equality by 2024.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the city or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

20 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

21 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 14% by 2024.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

22 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Salford City Council currently has 60 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will make sure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

24 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 60 councillors.

25 As Salford City Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council will have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that applying such a pattern in a particular area of the authority would be inconsistent with satisfying the statutory criteria.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 56 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included two detailed city-wide proposals from the Council and the Conservative Group on the Council. Both were based on a pattern of wards to be represented by 60 elected members.

27 The city-wide schemes each provided for a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards for Salford. We carefully considered the proposals received and concluded that the proposed ward boundaries would have very good levels of electoral equality. We also considered that they generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

28 Our draft recommendations are based on a combination of the city-wide proposals that we received. In some areas of the city we have also taken into account local evidence that we received, which provided evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. Where we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria we have identified alternative boundaries. We also visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Salford helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

29 The boundaries proposed by the two schemes were significantly different. As Salford elects by thirds and we therefore have an obligation to create a warding pattern returning 20 three-councillor wards, accepting a proposal in one area often has a significant impact on an alternative proposal for a neighbouring area. As such,

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c). 6 it was particularly difficult to incorporate elements of both schemes into our draft recommendations. We would be interested to hear general feedback on a preference for either the scheme put forward by the Council or the Conservative Group, along with community-based evidence to support this. Respondents, however, should be mindful as to the impact of their requests to wards across the entire city. It is important that we hear from electors who both support as well as object to our draft recommendations for Salford.

30 Our draft recommendations are for 20 three-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

31 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on pages 35–6 and on the large map accompanying this report.

32 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed ward.

Draft recommendations

33 The tables and maps on pages 8–30 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Salford. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

North-west Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 & Ellenbrook 3 3% 3 -4% North 3 -6% 3 -7% & Westwood Park 3 3%

8

Boothstown & Ellenbrook, and Walkden South 34 We received two alternative warding patterns from the Council and Conservative Group for the area covering the current wards of Boothstown & Ellenbrook, Walkden North and Walkden South. Both proposals offered good electoral equality in all three wards.

35 The Conservative Group submission proposed to move the area of Ellenbrook into a ward with Walkden South arguing that Ellenbrook had been in a ward with Walkden South before the previous electoral review and that there is a disconnect between the communities of Boothstown and Ellenbrook. The submission also argued that Ellenbrook has more in common with Walkden South, including shopping facilities, transport links and shared recreation space. Including Ellenbrook in a Walkden South ward would mean poor electoral equality for Walkden South at 16%. The Conservative Group also proposed to redraw the boundary between Walkden North and Walkden South around the town centre, to rectify this electoral imbalance. Electors north of the railway line between Athens Drive and Holly Road would move out of Walkden South and into Walkden North. The submission argues that including the town centre within one Walkden ward would promote effective and convenient local government.

36 The Council’s proposals for Boothstown & Ellenbrook, Walkden North and Walkden South were broadly based on the current warding pattern with a small amendment to the southern boundary of Walkden South to include electors in Woodland Grange in Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward for reasons of access. The Council argued that the current Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward has shared characteristics, with most of the housing being privately owned or rented and containing an older than average population than the rest of the wards across the city.

37 We did not receive any other submissions regarding Walkden or Boothstown & Ellenbrook. On balance, we do not believe strong enough evidence was presented to move electors in Ellenbrook into Walkden South. We are therefore recommending the Council’s scheme in Boothstown & Ellenbrook. This has a negative impact on the Conservative scheme in Walkden, with Walkden South having an electoral variance of -27%. We are therefore not adopting the Conservative Group proposals for Walkden North and Walkden South.

38 Our draft Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward also takes in electors from Roe Green and part of northern Worsley, using the M60 as an identifiable boundary to improve electoral equality between Boothstown & Ellenbrook and Worsley & Westwood Park. The Conservative Group submission disagrees with this proposal, arguing that Worsley Brow is a major four-carriageway road, meaning that the M60 is not a natural boundary at that location. Not including electors in Roe Green and northern Worsley in our draft Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward would lead to poor electoral equality here at -19% and in Worsley & Westwood Park at 24%.

39 We propose to amend the Council’s boundary in the Roe Green area. The Council’s proposal splits the village of Roe Green between Boothstown & Ellenbrook and Worsely & Westwood Park using the M60 as the boundary between the two wards. The Conservative Group, however, argued that although they appear to be

9 separated by the M60, the two areas form a single community. We are therefore amending the Council’s proposal in this area and moving electors in Alfred Avenue and Mabel Avenue into our draft Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward. This retains the entirety of Roe Green village within one ward. The Council also recommended two small amendments to the boundary between Walkden South and Little Hulton, discussed in further detail in paragraphs 42, 43 and 47.

40 We have made a small amendment to the boundary in the east to use the M60 motorway as a more clearly identifiable boundary, running behind The Grange farmhouse in the south and then re-joining the motorway. This change does not affect any electors.

41 Our draft Walkden North, Walkden South and Boothstown & Ellenbrook wards will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Little Hulton 42 The Council based their Little Hulton ward on the current ward in this area, with the addition of a small number of electors around Harrop Street, Stevenson Street, Prescott Street and Ellis Crescent to improve electoral equality between Walkden South and Little Hulton.

43 The Conservative Group disagreed with the proposal to move electors in Harrop Street into Little Hulton on the basis that electors here would be isolated by the St Andrews school campus. In addition, they argued that the boundary for Walkden South would encroach too far into the heart of Little Hulton and did not reflect the community here. On balance, we are persuaded by the Conservative Group argument for this area and have retained Harrop Street in Little Hulton.

44 The Conservative Group submission also suggested moving electors east of Cleggs Lane and north of Manchester Road East around Peelwood Avenue, Hilton Street, Mount Skip Lane and the surrounding roads, into Little Hulton. This is on the basis that electors here are likely to consider themselves part of Little Hulton and are separated from the rest of the Walkden North ward by the Loopline walkway and cycle path to the north.

45 Moving these electors into our draft Little Hulton ward would result in an electoral variance of -10% in Walkden North. We do not feel that sufficient evidence has been submitted to justify recommending such a variance in Walkden North; however, we would be interested to receive submissions from local residents and/or organisations in this area on which ward they identify with most. If strong evidence was received to support this move, the Commission would take this into consideration when formulating its final recommendations.

46 Our draft Little Hulton ward therefore largely reflects the Council’s proposal to the point where the Green Line crosses Manchester Road East. As proposed by the Conservatives, we have deviated from Manchester Road East to include Harrop Street.

47 Both submissions also recommended moving an area south of the abandoned railway line, and adjacent to the Worsley Wastewater Treatment Works (Worsley

10

WWTW) into Walkden South. This does not affect any electors at present but provides for a stronger boundary between the Little Hulton and Walkden South wards and will allow for any future housing development here to have access into the Walkden South ward.

48 Little Hulton will have good electoral equality by 2023.

Worsley & Westwood Park 49 We received two schemes from the Council and Conservative Group for the area of Worsley and Westwood Park, as well as a submission from the Westwood & Alder Park Tenants’ & Residents’ Association and a local resident.

50 The local resident suggested an alternative north-west boundary for Worsley along Manchester Road, taking in electors from Walkden South between Old Clough Lane and the motorway and from between Moorside Road and the motorway. We feel that the motorway is a stronger boundary in this area and therefore did not adopt this proposal.

51 The Conservative Group submission proposed a Worsley & Boothstown ward that covered the current Worsley ward to the west of Broadoak Park with the current Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward. As discussed above, we have not adopted the Conservative Group proposal to remove Ellenbrook from its current ward with Boothstown. Because we were not persuaded by the evidence received to move Ellenbrook from a Boothstown to Walkden ward we are consequentially unable to adopt the Conservatives’ proposals for the Worsley & Westwood Park area of Salford. A ward covering this area that includes Ellenbrook would have a very poor electoral variance, at 23%.

52 The Council proposed a ward for this area that is bounded by East Road to the north, the M60 to the west, and around the back of the houses accessed from Folly Lane, Rocky Lane and Monton Green in the east. We are proposing to adopt this arrangement subject to a slight alteration to their proposed southern boundary on the basis of the evidence received by the Westwood Park & Alder Park Tenants’ & Residents’ Association.

53 The Association’s submission argued that it would be opposed to any changes to their warding arrangement that would impact upon their local community. It is proposed that whilst the Alder Forest and Westwood Park areas are moved from a Winton ward to a Worsely & Westwood Park ward that the community is kept intact. We therefore propose to use the M602 rather than Parrin Lane as the southern boundary for this ward both to provide for better access to the rest of the ward for electors around Napier Road, Trevor Road, Montonfields Road and Montonmill Gardens who are separated from Barton & Winton ward by the motorway and to keep the communities together.

54 Worsley & Westwood Park will have good electoral equality by 2024.

11

South-west Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 Barton & Winton 3 -5% Cadishead & Lower Irlam 3 0% Higher Irlam & Peel Green 3 1%

12

Cadishead & Lower Irlam and Higher Irlam & Peel Green 55 The electorate size in the wards of Cadishead and Irlam is significantly lower than the other wards across Salford. Cadishead is constrained on three sides by the neighbouring authorities of Trafford, Warrington and . Irlam is bordered to the south by Trafford, following the Manchester Ship Canal, and to the west by Cadishead ward and Wigan. The northern areas of both wards are rural. Because of the geographical location of Cadishead and Irlam, it is impossible to achieve a good level of electoral equality here without moving electors from the neighbouring areas of Barton upon Irlam or Peel Green.

56 We received 15 submissions regarding Cadishead and Irlam wards, from two local organisations and 13 local residents. Thirteen of the submissions were opposed to any change that incorporated electors from the existing Barton and Winton wards, arguing that Cadishead and Irlam are distinctly separate in identity from these areas.

57 One of the submissions from a local resident suggested retaining the current boundaries of Cadishead and Irlam wards but dropping the number of councillors in each to two. While Irlam would have fair electoral equality at 10%, Cadishead would have poor electoral equality at 28%. Furthermore, as discussed in paragraph 25, because Salford City Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation that the Council will have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, unless the Commission receive significant evidence to persuade them that a different arrangement would represent a better balance of our statutory criteria.

58 We also received a submission that suggested the two wards retain their existing external boundaries and be combined; however, such a ward would also have poor electoral equality at 59%.

59 We received two schemes from the Council and Conservative Group proposing a Cadishead & Lower Irlam ward with almost identical boundaries, with the exception of Cutnook Lane, which the Conservative Group proposed should be in Cadishead & Lower Irlam. We felt, on balance, that it was more appropriate to include electors here in Higher Irlam & Peel Green for reasons of access.

60 The two schemes that we received for a Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward differed in their proposed boundaries. The Conservative Group proposed to include electors south of Peel Green Cemetery and south of Liverpool Road as far as the Bridgewater Canal in Barton upon Irwell in a Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward. They argued that this warding pattern would best retain community ties in Peel Green, provide for good electoral equality and that the canal represented a clear boundary.

61 The Council scheme proposed to include electors north of the cemetery around Salford City Academy and Barton Moss Community Primary School in a Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward, using the M60 as a boundary, then following Liverpool Road and running the boundary behind the backs of houses along Stanley Road and Higher Croft Road to meet the ship canal in the south.

13

62 On balance, we decided to adopt the Council’s proposals as part of our draft recommendations for this area, on the grounds that they keep the whole of the Peel Green area within a single ward. Although there is access under the M60 that connects Peel Green with Barton upon Irwell, Schofield Road Playing Fields, Worsley Brook and the M60 represent a distinct break in the continuity of the communities here. Furthermore, whilst the Bridgewater Canal represents a break between the communities of Barton upon Irwell, there are two crossing points that might connect the communities on either side. Similarly, to use the canal as a boundary would isolate the properties around Eldon Place and Woodfield Grove from the rest of the Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward and create a bottleneck in our proposed Barton & Winton ward. Using a boundary along Stanley Road consequentially reduces the number of electors in Barton upon Irwell that must be split between wards.

63 We considered the proposals for this area very carefully, as both offered good levels of electoral equality and boundaries. We are particularly interested to hear from residents of both Peel Green and Barton upon Irwell as to which proposal better reflects their community identity, and whether the M60 or the Bridgewater Canal represents a clearer ward boundary in their area.

64 The Commission acknowledges that ideally the communities of Peel Green, Barton with Irwell and Irlam would not be placed in the same ward. However, given the geographic location of the wards, the projected electoral inequality for the area and the relevant legislation, we have been unable to identify any alternative options that allow us to keep these areas in separate wards.

65 Our proposed Cadishead & Lower Irlam and Higher Irlam & Peel Green wards will both have good levels of electoral equality by 2024.

Barton & Winton 66 We received two schemes concerning our Barton and Winton wards from the Council and Conservative Group, as well as a submission from a local organisation, the Langdale & Boscombe Community Group.

67 The submission from the local organisation argued strongly that the area of Langdale Drive and Boscombe Avenue should remain in the Barton ward and objected to any move into a ward linked with Irlam. As outlined in paragraphs 55–65, we have considered alternative options for this area. We have not been able to identify a warding pattern that returns three councillors in each and has good electoral equality without some electors from Barton joining a Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward. Consequentially, whilst we have not split the community around these roads between wards, we have had to place them in a ward with Irlam.

68 The two schemes we received for the Barton and Winton areas of Salford proposed significantly different boundaries. The Council’s scheme proposed joining the areas around Winton west of the Bridgewater Canal, east of the M60 and as far south as the Barton Hall Industrial Estate in a ward with Barton upon Upwell east of Stanley Road, as described above, and as far west as the works off Bentcliffe Way and Gilda Brook Road. They argued that the two communities of Barton and Winton

14 share similar characteristics, being predominantly residential and comprising mainly semi-detached houses.

69 The Conservative Group proposed to retain the current Winton ward boundaries, with the addition of electors north of Liverpool Road and east of Green Lane around Patricroft station. They proposed that the current Barton ward be split between a Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward and a wider Eccles ward, with the ship canal acting as the boundary between the two. They argued that these proposals provide the best balance of community identity, administrative continuity and electoral equality.

70 We are proposing to adopt the Council’s submission in this area subject to an alteration to the northern boundary to place the houses between Parrin Lane and the M602 in our Worsely & Westwood Park ward, as discussed above. We are also proposing a minor alteration to the north-eastern boundary to include the tram station and post office in an Eccles ward. This is discussed further in paragraph 107. This proposal was also supported by a submission from a local resident.

71 We are unable to adopt the Conservative scheme for this area as a consequence of the wards proposed as part of these draft recommendations in Boothstown & Ellenbrook, Higher Irlam & Peel Green and the Eccles ward, as discussed later in this report.

15

South-east Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 Blackfriars & Trinity 3 1% Ordsall 3 3% Quays 3 5%

16

Ordsall and Quays 72 This area is experiencing extensive regeneration and development and as a result the current ward of Ordsall is projected to have 159% more electors than the average for Salford by 2024. As well as the two city-wide schemes, we received 12 submissions regarding the current Ordsall ward from Sovereign Point Residents’ Association, Sacred Trinity Church and 10 local residents. All submissions agreed that the size of the electorate in the current Ordsall ward should be reduced.

73 Six of these submissions favoured creating a new Quays ward to encompass many of the electors in the newer housing around the MediaCityUK development. The respondents argued that the newer developments around the Quays area represent a very different community to that of the traditional Ordsall community. Similarly, the issues and objectives of electors in each area will differ significantly.

74 Three of the submissions we received were opposed to the creation of a dedicated Quays ward to cover electors in the newer housing around the MediaCityUK development. The respondents argued that that this could be divisive, that the two areas have traditionally been within the same ward and that they should remain within the same ward to ensure a level of diversity and inclusivity in Ordsall that is generally reflected across the city as a whole.

75 One of the submissions from a local resident proposed the creation of a new Ordsall ward. This proposal covered the area north of Regent Road, bounded to the west by the A5603 and Frederick Road and to the east by the city limit, and crossed the River Irwell. We visited this area on our tour and felt that the River Irwell acted as a strong and clearly identifiable boundary. We therefore did not accept this proposal. The submission also acknowledged the need to split the current Ordsall ward.

76 The schemes that we received for the area from the Council and Conservative Group both proposed the creation of a new Quays ward separate from Ordsall, although suggesting different boundaries. Given expected population growth and the evidence received during our consultation on warding patterns, we feel the creation of a new Quays ward that is separate from the current Ordsall ward is the most appropriate solution in this area.

77 The Council scheme proposed that the new Quays ward should be bounded by the Manchester Ship Canal in the east, with the inner boundary running along Ordsall Lane down to Exchange Quay, then along Craven Drive meeting Trafford Road. They proposed the northern boundary should follow Broadway and Eccles New Road up to the A5063 where it would meet the existing Ordsall ward boundary down to the city limit along the ship canal. The Council’s proposed Ordsall ward follows the existing ward boundary along Albion Way, extending to the A6 and along the Crescent to Salford Central station, where it turns down Bridge Street to meet the city limit in the east. It follows the city limit to Regent Road and then extends down Ordsall Lane to Exchange Quay, then along Craven Drive meeting Trafford Road. It then follows Broadway and turns north to meet Eccles New Road, including electors in Howard Street and the surrounding roads in Ordsall.

78 The Conservative Group submission follows the city limit from Bridge Street in the north, and then meets Ordsall Lane south of Modwen Road. From here, it runs

17 along Warburton Street until turning north on Taylorson Street and then east along the boundary of Ordsall Park until it meets Trafford Road. This forms the western boundary until it meets Regent Road. The Conservative proposal for Quays ward is made up by the remainder of the existing Ordsall ward across Salford Quays, with the inclusion of electors in My Street and the surrounding roads.

79 We looked at these proposals in detail when we visited the area to help us identify which of the schemes we felt offered the best balance of our statutory criteria.

80 Trafford Road provides an immediately identifiable boundary between the Ordsall and Quays areas of Salford; however, following our tour it became apparent that the established community of Ordsall overspilled at Trafford Road’s northern extent, and the newer development of the Quays area crossed over toward the ship canal end. On balance, we felt that the Council’s proposal better reflected the extents of the different communities in these areas and allowed for these overspills, whilst using Trafford Road where appropriate.

81 Although the proposed Quays ward boundary appears a little dog-legged, it was our opinion that the proposal to include developments between Ordsall Lane and the ship canal in a newly created Quays ward was sound. Many of the developments along this stretch of road are in their early stages and we felt that it was likely that electors moving into these properties would have more in common with a wider Quays ward based around MediaCityUK and Salford Quays than with the more established and traditional communities of Ordsall. Additionally, at present this area is also separated from Ordsall by high fencing.

82 We are therefore accepting the Council’s proposed Quays ward subject to a couple of minor alterations. The first, in the north-west of the ward, involves moving the Missouri Avenue industrial area into our Quays ward from a & Seedley ward. This change does not affect any electors but should provide for a more identifiable boundary. The second is to run the northern boundary around the back of properties at numbers 145–161 and 223–229 along Eccles New Road for reasons of access.

83 The Conservative Group had proposed to use the M602 rather than Eccles New Road as the northern boundary for a Quays ward. We drove along both Eccles New Road and the M602 on our visit to the area. We felt that while the motorway was clearly a strong and identifiable boundary, we were also of the opinion that Eccles New Road acted as a reasonable boundary. The Conservative Group submission argued that electors in between Eccles New Road and the M602, in Eric Street and Peel Cross Road, should be placed in a ward to the south as they would be effectively cut off from a wider Pendleton & Charlestown ward as the Council proposed. Although there is access across the motorway via Regent Road Roundabout, we acknowledge that electors here may feel isolated.

84 To move electors here into Quays ward would lead to poor electoral equality in Quays at 11%. Therefore, we proposed to put the electors around Eric Street and Peel Cross Road into our draft Pendleton & Charlestown ward which will have a variance of 3%. We also considered moving electors here west into our draft Weaste

18

& Seedley ward; however, this would worsen the electoral equality in Weaste & Seedley, moving from it 4% to 10%. On balance, we are recommending using Eccles New Road as the boundary between Quays and Pendleton & Charlestown, subject to the minor amendments described above.

85 We would be particularly interested in feedback from residents living either side of Eccles New Road and in the developments around Eric Street and Peel Cross Road as to which ward they identify with – Pendleton & Charlestown, Weaste & Seedley or Quays – and whether they feel that Eccles New Road acts as an effective boundary through the area.

86 Our draft Quays ward is based predominantly on the Council’s scheme, with minor amendments as described to the boundary in the west and along Eccles New Road. Quays will have good electoral equality by 2024. Consequentially, our draft Ordsall ward is also based predominantly on the Council’s scheme. We are, however, proposing an amendment to the northern and north-eastern boundary where Ordsall ward meets Blackfriars & Trinity ward to reflect evidence received from both the Conservative Group and Sacred Trinity Church. This is discussed in further detail below.

Blackfriars & Trinity 87 We received a submission from Scared Trinity Church, as well as the two schemes from the Council and Conservative Group, regarding our draft Blackfriars & Trinity ward. This area is split between Irwell Riverside and Ordsall under the existing arrangements.

88 Both schemes proposed to largely follow the River Irwell as a boundary in the north and west and the city limit as a boundary in the east. The Council proposed using Cleminson Street and Upper Cleminson Street as the boundary between Ordsall and Blackfriars & Trinity in the south. They proposed to include the new Adelphi Wharf developments in Ordsall, and the Slate Yard development and Salford Central station, in Blackfriars & Trinity. The Conservative Group, however, proposed using the River Irwell as the boundary on all sides between Adelphi House in the south-west and Bridge Street to the south-east. They used Chapel Street as the southern boundary between Blackfriars & Trinity and Ordsall wards.

89 We visited this area on our tour of Salford and, on balance, were persuaded by the Conservative submission arguing that Chapel Street and the River Irwell provide a clear and identifiable boundary. We were also of the opinion that New Bailey Street represented a clear divide between Ordsall and Blackfriars & Trinity in the south- east. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Conservative Group’s proposed boundaries in this area.

90 The submission from Sacred Trinity Church supported the proposal to be moved out of an Ordsall ward, arguing it was geographically distant from its natural centre. The submission also supported including ‘Trinity’ in the ward name for historic reasons. We are therefore proposing to call this ward Blackfriars & Trinity. Blackfriars & Trinity will have good electoral equality by 2024.

19

East Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 Broughton 3 -7% & Broughton Park 3 -4%

20

Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park 91 The two city-wide schemes proposed new warding arrangements for Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park. We also received a submission from a local resident in relation to the ward of Broughton that supported keeping Broughton in one ward. The two schemes we received suggested similar boundaries to each other and the existing wards. There was, however, a slight difference in the proposals for the boundary between Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park.

92 The Council’s proposed boundary runs from the River Irwell along Northumberland Avenue, south down Leicester Road and then west along Devonshire Street before joining Great Cheetham Street East up to the city limit.

93 The Conservative Group proposal follows Bury New Road south from the River Irwell, turns east along Wellington Street East and Welbeck Grove, before meeting Leicester Road and travelling north until Broom Lane where it runs east to the city limit.

94 Retaining the existing boundary is not viable because Kersal ward is predicted to have 12% fewer electors than the average for Salford by 2024.

95 On balance, we were persuaded by the Conservative Group proposal in this area. They argued that electors in Bristol Street, Heaton Street, Symons Street, Gainsborough Street and Norton Street would be separated from the remainder of Kersal & Broughton Park ward by Mandley Park. We are therefore adopting the Conservative proposal in this area, with a small amendment to the boundary to include electors south of Tetlow Lane and north of Mandley Park in Kersal & Broughton Park, for reasons of access.

96 We would be interested to hear views from residents in this area regarding which of the proposals we received offers a more clear and identifiable boundary between the two wards.

97 Our draft Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park wards will both have good electoral equality by 2024.

21

Central and South Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 Claremont 3 5% Eccles 3 8% Pendleton & Charlestown 3 3% Weaste & Seedley 3 4%

22

Eccles 98 We received two schemes for the area covering the existing ward of Eccles, from the Council and the Conservative Group. The schemes proposed significantly different boundaries. We also received four submissions from local residents in this area.

99 The Council’s proposal for Eccles was based primarily on the existing ward boundaries here, with an amendment to include the electors around Patricroft station and the western end of Cromwell Road as far south as Liverpool Road, and east as Green Lane.

100 We also received a submission from a local resident arguing that the current boundary in this area did not reflect community ties. They proposed that Patricroft and Eccles are an integrated community. The resident went on to propose a wider Eccles & Patricroft ward that incorporated electors from the current ward of Barton. However, such a ward would have poor electoral equality at 47%, with the corresponding impact on our draft Barton & Winton ward also leading to poor electoral equality at -42%.

101 The Conservative Group’s submission for Eccles proposed to move electors in Monton into a new Broadoak & Monton ward. However, given that we have accepted the Council’s proposals for Worsley & Westwood Park, as discussed in paragraphs 49–54, the impact on the remainder of the Conservatives’ proposed Broadoak & Monton ward would be such that the resultant electoral variance for the ward would be very poor, at -31%. Moving the remainder of the electors in the Conservatives’ proposed Broadoak & Monton ward into their proposed Eccles ward also results in poor electoral equality at 33%. We are not persuaded by the evidence received to create the additional Broadoak & Monton ward or accept an Eccles ward with such poor electoral equality.

102 The two schemes also suggested significantly different boundaries in the east of Eccles, with the Conservative submission recommending the current ward boundary along the backs of the houses on St George’s Crescent, while the Council scheme suggesting that the boundary should run around the backs of the houses along Victoria Road. We visited this area on our tour of Salford and felt that both boundaries worked on the ground.

103 We propose to adopt the Council’s scheme for Eccles as part of our draft recommendations, also noting the further evidence provided by the local resident. We believe that this arrangement offers the best balance of our statutory criteria. This does mean that we are unable to retain the current ward boundary to the east, as to do so would result in a poor electoral variance within the neighbouring Claremont ward at 11%.

104 We are proposing a minor amendment to the southern boundary, as described further in paragraph 107. This extends the southern boundary along Bentcliffe Way rather than Regent Street.

105 We would be interested to hear feedback from residents and local organisations in the Patricroft area between Green Lane, Milton Street and Liverpool

23

Road regarding the draft recommendations here and whether they identify more closely with either an Eccles or Barton & Winton ward.

106 We also considered using the A5185 as a boundary between Eccles and Claremont wards, moving electors west of Lancaster Road between Orient Road and Eccles Old Road into Eccles ward. We visited this area on tour and felt that it could act as a more identifiable boundary than the Council’s proposal. However, to do this would result in an Eccles ward with a variance of 17%.

107 We are recommending one small amendment to the southern boundary between Eccles and Barton & Winton. We received a submission from a local resident, arguing that it was confusing that the town centre was split across two wards. The Conservative submission also argued that it did not promote effective and convenient local government to use Regent Street as a boundary to separate Eccles and Barton & Winton. We are therefore proposing to use Bentcliffe Way as the southern boundary in the town. This ensures that Eccles Library, Eccles Town Hall, the bus station and shopping facilities are based in one ward.

108 Eccles will have good electoral equality by 2023.

Claremont and Weaste & Seedley 109 The two schemes that we received for Claremont proposed significantly different boundaries, but both offered good levels of electoral equality.

110 The Conservative Group proposed to dissolve the existing ward of Claremont and split the electors between its proposed wards of Weaste & Seedley, Pendleton & Crescent and Height & Charlestown.

111 The Council proposed a Claremont ward that was based in parts on the existing arrangement, but with the southern boundary moved to run entirely along Eccles Old Road, and the northern boundary along the East Lancashire Road. The ward was extended to the east to include Brindle Heath. The western extent runs along the backs of houses along Victoria and Hereford Roads.

112 We also received a submission from a local resident that supported the Council’s proposed northern boundary of East Lancashire Road, suggesting that this was a more natural boundary between the Claremont and Swinton Park communities.

113 On balance, we feel that the Council’s proposal for Claremont reflects a better balance of the statutory criteria, in that it offers good electoral equality and clearly identifiable boundaries.

114 The Council and the Conservatives also proposed significantly different boundaries for Weaste & Seedley ward. The Conservative Group proposal was based predominantly on the existing ward. They suggested alterations to the north and south-east to include electors between Orient Drive and Oxford Road and remove the electors around Langworthy station respectively. However, given the boundaries that we are recommending in Claremont, the impact on the remainder of

24 the proposed Conservative Weaste & Seedley would be poor electoral equality at -19%.

115 The Council proposed a Weaste & Seedley ward that runs from Eccles Old Road in the north to the Manchester Ship Canal in the south. It is bounded by Gilda Brook Road in the west. The eastern extent runs from the ship canal along the eastern edge of the cemetery across the M602 and up Fitzwarren Street.

116 We propose to adopt the Council’s scheme subject to a minor alteration as discussed in paragraph 82 to include the Missouri Avenue industrial area in a Quays ward. We also propose to include the electors on Athole Street and Scanlon Lane in Weaste & Seedley rather than Pendleton & Charlestown to improve access.

117 We received a submission from a local resident who argued that the Bentcliffe Park area including Devonshire Road, Trafalgar Road, Osborne Road and Belmont Avenue should be moved into Eccles. The respondent proposed that the area is distinct from the rest of the Weaste & Seedley ward and is physically separated by the Royal Salford Hospital. They also argued that it has stronger links with Eccles than it does with Weaste & Seedley. We are not minded to adopt this proposal as to move the electors in Bentcliffe Park into Eccles would result in poor electoral equality in Eccles at 13%.

Pendleton & Charlestown 118 The proposals that we received for this area were significantly different from each other and the existing arrangements breaking up the current Irwell Riverside and Langworthy wards.

119 The Conservative Group proposed splitting the area into two new wards named Height & Charlestown and Pendleton & Crescent. We visited this area on tour and felt that the Conservative Group proposal offered strong boundaries and provided for good electoral equality.

120 Pendleton & Crescent is based predominantly on the ward of Langworthy, while also taking in electors from the current Ordsall ward. The southern boundary follows the M602 and Regent Road until Oldfield Road where it turns north until it meets the River Irwell. The boundary then follows the River Irwell until Frederick Road, where it turns south-east to meet Broad Street. It follows Broad Street, turning east on Eccles Old Road and then turning south on Langworthy Road, extending down Seedley Road and through Buile Hill Park. The boundary then moves south from Buile Hill Park to Derby Road until it meets the M602.

121 The second proposed ward of Height & Charlestown is based predominantly on the current Irwell Riverside ward and followed the existing boundary in the north and east, down to Frederick Road. It turned south-east to follow Frederick Road and then north along Broad Street. The boundary then turned east along Eccles Old Road and south along Langworthy Road, before turning east into Buile Hill Park. From here the boundary moved north through the park to meet Eccles Old Road and then followed Claremont Road north. It cut north through Lightoaks Park, meeting Swinton Park Road, and then turned west to meet the existing ward boundary at Broad Street.

25

122 However, because we are proposing to adopt the Council’s warding patterns for Claremont, Ordsall and Weaste & Seedley, the impact on electoral equality for the Conservative Group’s scheme in this area is negative. The remainder of their Height & Charlestown ward would have an electoral variance of -46% and similarly the remainder of their proposed Pendlebury & Clifton ward would have an electoral imbalance of -36% by 2024.

123 We are therefore recommending the Council’s proposed Pendleton & Charlestown ward is adopted in this area. This is subject to the minor alteration also discussed in paragraph 116 to improve access for electors in Scanlon Lane. Pendleton & Charlestown will have good electoral equality by 2024.

26

27

North Salford

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2024 Pendlebury & Clifton 3 -3% Swinton Park 3 1% Swinton & Wardley 3 0%

28

Pendlebury & Clifton 124 The city-wide schemes provided by both the Council and the Conservative Group were not significantly dissimilar to the existing arrangements in this area. Our draft recommendations reflect both schemes and the current ward subject to a number of minor amendments.

125 In the north-west we propose to extend the boundary south from Manchester Road to the dismantled railway to include electors in Fitton Crescent, Wyndham Avenue, Gaskell Street and Vicker Close in a Pendlebury & Clifton ward rather than a Swinton ward. This boundary was proposed by the Conservative Group, who argued that residents here identify more with Clifton in the east than a Swinton ward to the south.

126 Along the southern boundary we are proposing to move the industrial units off Swinton Hall Road and Albion Street from our Pendlebury & Clifton ward into Swinton Park ward. This was proposed by the Council and does not affect any electors.

127 The Conservatives proposed to move the same boundary as far south as Swinton Hall Road to unite all the industrial units in one ward. However, this would isolate the electors around Scholes Street and Stanley Road from the rest of their ward. On balance, we feel that the current ward boundary using the railway line, and as supported by the Council’s submission, makes for a stronger and more effective boundary. It also serves to unite the industrial area in a single ward.

128 The Council and the Conservative Group both proposed to move the 39 electors on Borchardt Drive into a Swinton ward. We have incorporated this modification into our draft recommendations for reasons of access.

129 Along the south-eastern boundary of our Pendleton & Clifton ward we have adopted the Conservatives’ proposal to include the Broomhall and Hillside Drive area in the Swinton Park ward. They argued that residents here are isolated from the remainder of the Pendlebury & Clifton ward and have more in common with electors in the proposed Swinton Park ward. However, we have adopted the Council’s proposal to include the entirety of Agecroft Commerce Park within one ward using railway cuttings as the boundary. This provides for a clear and identifiable boundary and in the case of the commerce park will not affect any electors.

130 We would be interested to hear feedback from residents affected by the changes proposed here as to which wards they feel the greatest affinity.

Swinton Park and Swinton & Wardley 131 The two schemes that we received for the existing Swinton North ward were broadly similar, and both based on the existing ward boundaries.

132 The Council’s proposal used the current ward boundaries of Swinton North but extended the south-eastern boundary to include the electors south of Chorley Road, north of Worsley Road and east of Moorside Primary School to improve electoral equality. They proposed to retain the Swinton North name.

29

133 The Conservative Group scheme also proposed to extend the ward boundary east to include not only the electors detailed in paragraph 132, but also those north of Chorley Road as far as Swinton station and bounded by Pendlebury Road.

134 They also proposed an amendment to the northern boundary with Pendlebury & Clifton, which we are minded to adopt, and as discussed in paragraph 125, to use the dismantled railway.

135 On balance, we feel that the Conservative Group proposal for this area offers a better balance of our statutory criteria: strong boundaries, good electoral equality and reflects community identity. We have, however, made one small amendment to the boundary between Swinton & Wardley and Swinton Park to include electors at 59–117 Worsley Road in our draft Swinton Park ward, for reasons of access. We propose the adopt the name Swinton & Wardley for the ward, as proposed by the Conservative Group. They argued that this was a better reflection of the communities within the ward.

136 The schemes that we received for the presently named area differed both from each other and the existing warding pattern. The Conservatives’ proposals for this area achieved a good level of electoral equality if taken within the context of the rest of their scheme. However, given our recommendations for Weaste & Seedley, Swinton & Wardley and Claremont and the fact that we do not propose to create a Broadoak & Monton ward, we are consequentially unable to adopt their proposals for Swinton South. The remaining parts of this ward would have an electoral variance of -23%.

137 We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s scheme in this area with a small amendment to the eastern boundary between this ward and Pendlebury & Clifton, as discussed in paragraph 129. We do, however, propose to adopt the name Swinton Park to replace Swinton South, as proposed by the Conservative Group, who argued that it better reflects the shared community interests that make up the ward.

138 Swinton & Wardley and Swinton Park will have good electoral equality by 2024.

30

Conclusions 139 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2018 and 2024 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2018 2024

Number of councillors 60 60

Number of electoral wards 20 20

Average number of electors per councillor 2,948 3,374

Number of wards with a variance more 8 0 than 10% from the average

Number of wards with a variance more 3 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Salford City Council should be made up of 60 councillors serving 20 wards representing 20 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for the Salford City Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Salford on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

31

32

3 Have your say

140 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

141 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Salford, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

142 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

143 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Salford) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

144 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for the Salford which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

145 A good pattern of ward should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

146 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

147 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?

33

• Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

148 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

149 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Victoria Street (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

150 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

151 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

152 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Salford in 2020.

Equalities

153 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

34

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Salford City Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2018) (2024) councillor % councillor % 1 Barton & Winton 3 9,477 3,159 7% 9,578 3,193 -5% Blackfriars & 2 3 5,578 1,859 -37% 10,230 3,410 1% Trinity Boothstown & 3 3 9,744 3,248 10% 10,397 3,466 3% Ellenbrook 4 Broughton 3 9,255 3,085 5% 9,460 3,153 -7% Cadishead & 5 3 9,595 3,198 9% 10,144 3,381 0% Lower Irlam 6 Claremont 3 9,953 3,318 13% 10,610 3,537 5%

7 Eccles 3 10,653 3,551 20% 10,949 3,650 8% Higher Irlam & 8 3 9,782 3,261 11% 10,203 3,401 1% Peel Green Kersal & 9 3 9,454 3,151 7% 9,753 3,251 -4% Broughton Park 10 Little Hulton 3 9,123 3,041 3% 9,680 3,227 -4%

11 Ordsall 3 5,878 1,959 -34% 10,474 3,491 3% Pendlebury & 12 3 8,876 2,959 0% 9,794 3,265 -3% Clifton

35

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2018) (2024) councillor % councillor % Pendleton & 13 3 8,788 2,929 -1% 10,473 3,491 3% Charlestown 14 Quays 3 3,704 1,235 -58% 10,639 3,546 5% Swinton & 15 3 9,588 3,196 8% 10,077 3,359 0% Wardley 16 Swinton Park 3 9,594 3,198 8% 10,181 3,394 1%

17 Walkden North 3 9,078 3,026 3% 9,551 3,184 -6%

18 Walkden South 3 8,197 2,732 -7% 9,368 3,123 -7% Weaste & 19 3 10,677 3,559 21% 10,521 3,507 4% Seedley Worsley & 20 3 9,859 3,286 11% 10,387 3,462 3% Westwood Park Totals 60 176,853 – – 202,469 – –

Averages – – 2,948 – – 3,374 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Salford City Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the city. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

36

Appendix B

Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater- manchester/salford

37

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater-manchester/salford

Local Authority

• Salford City Council • Salford City Council Conservative Group

Political Group

• Irlam & Cadishead Branch Labour Party

Local Organisations

• Cadishead Youth & Community Association • Langdale & Boscombe Community Group • Sacred Trinity Church • Salford Clinical Commissioning Group • Sovereign Point Residents’ Association • Westwood & Alder Park Tenants’ & Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 47 local residents

38

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

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

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as anothers

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

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

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

39

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

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

40

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in

whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

41

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 conducting boundary, electoral and Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE