RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LANCASHIRE DIVISION BOUNDARIES My name is Anthony Robert Greaves I am a member of the House of Lords (Lord Greaves) and an elected member of Pendle Borough Council for Waterside Ward (known as Councillor Tony Greaves). I was a member of Lancashire County Council for 24 years between 1973 and 1997. My academic training was as a geographer. (1) I oppose the draft proposals for new divisional boundaries for Lancashire County Council as they apply to the district of Pendle. I do so because they do not reflect local community identities nor the relationships between communities in Pendle, and are worse in this regard than the existing County divisions. I specifically oppose the proposed Pendle Rural 2-member division (in which I would live) which seems bizarre and unnecessary. (2) I recognise that given the constraints within which you work, the fact that Pendle has a surplus of electors which makes the drawing of boundaries within the +10% constraint more difficult, and the size of the polling districts in the central urban parts of Pendle, it is not possible to create ideal divisions (and some of us have spent some time trying!) But it is possible to improve on the draft proposals. (3) In the circumstances I consider that the alternative proposals for Pendle proposed by Lancashire County Council (and supported by Pendle Borough Council) should be accepted. They are not ideal but they are much better than the draft scheme. When Pendle Council discussed the matter, only six Councillors voted against the LCC alternative which had strong cross-party support including ALL the West Craven area (Barnoldswick and Earby ward) members. COMMENT ON SOME OF THE AREAS. WEST CRAVEN and “PENDLE RURAL”. Last time round, some 20 years ago, it was possible to argue that the former Yorkshire area of West Craven could remain intact as one County area even though it exceeded the quote by some margin. (Indeed it has since then carried most of the Pendle surplus of electors). This is no longer possible and in any case population changes would make it less acceptable. The distinctive character of that area really lies with the two discrete towns of Barnoldswick and Earby which historically and at the present day fit together like gloves. The smaller parishes of Kelbrook and Salterforth (based on former mill villages substantially suburbanised) have steadily come to be more like those on the “Lancashire” side of the old border, notably Foulridge, Laneshaw Bridge and Trawden/Winewall (where I live); all are now first of all suburban villages. The surrounding countryside is also now deceptively suburban as farm holdings have amalgamated and barns been converted. Higherford and Blacko are similar in socio-economic character (though in either scheme Blacko is somewhat “out on a limb” and it is only the fringe of Colne which is anomalous – in either the draft 2- member proposal or the LCC/Pendle alternative proposal. But there seems no way around that problem given the numbers. (It is worth adding that Bracewell and Brogden are more similar to Blacko than to any other parish area.) I would argue therefore that splitting the two-member Pendle Rural into two seats makes sense from a socio-economic point of view. From a communications and links point of view, the 2- member seat would probably be seen as centred on Barnoldswick in spite of the Colne polling districts because the latter are largely fringe areas of the town. Such places as Trawden and Laneshaw Bridge have no links and little in common with Barnoldswick and Earby which do indeed sit together as distinct twin towns. There is surprisingly little knowledge in Trawden and Laneshaw Bridge about how the draft proposal affects them, but the people I have spoken to in the past fortnight are amazed and rather aghast at the idea they should “go in with Barnoldswick”. The inclusion of WF polling district of Waterside ward, an area of urban working class terraced housing, is an anomaly (and I declare my interest as a member for that ward on the Borough Council) but I am satisfied it is regrettably unavoidable. The arguments against a two-seat division, if it can possibly be avoided, are obvious in terms of its being an anomaly, being huge in terms of representation, and clumsy in terms of the system of accountability of County Councillors where (from my experience, and observation since then) members are still very much regarded as the “voice of their patch” and respected for that. In the community “the County Councillor” is still a position different in kind from that of a local Councillor. NELSON AND THE PENDLESIDE VILLAGES The proposal to include most of Bradley Ward (but not all) with Barrowford and Pendleside is seen locally as being very odd. The sharpest division in Pendle in terms of community identity is certainly that between Nelson and the villages across the river to the north (of which Barrowford still thinks of itself as one in spite of its size and strong growth in recent decades). These villages, and most of Barrowford, do not really function as suburbs of Nelson – they provide most of their commuters to further afield (some to Burnley, many to Blackburn, Preston and a growing number to Manchester). Nor do many people in Barrowford/Pendleside shop or “play” in Nelson. Equally, the large Asian populations in Nelson and Brierfield do not by and large look across the river. It is true that the present division boundaries in the Brierfield/Reedley area are not ideal, with Reedley joining Higham, Fence (Old Launch Booth) and the Pendleside parishes in Pendle West. But I would argue that the shock of putting Bradley with Pendleside would be much greater than any advantages of uniting Brierfield and Reedley. The fact is that the existing arrangement is long-standing and has come to be accepted – working arrangements are in place which the draft scheme would disrupt. Reedley Hallows Parish (as apart from the part of the ward in Brierfield parish) sees itself as part of the “Pendle Parishes” that stretch through Higham, Old Laund Booth (Fence), the Pendleside Parishes of Goldshaw Booth, Barley and Roughlee, to the boundaries of Barrowford. Even the top half of the South Ward of Brierfield parish looks to the rest of Reedley and beyond rather than down the hill to Brierfield. In any case much of Reedley Ward actually functions as a suburb of Burnley. It looks west rather than east or north, for work, shopping and recreation and there is a reciprocal movement to schools. It’s arguable that the Pendle/Burnley boundary is in the wrong place, but that is beyond this discussion… Perhaps the main reason for rejecting the changes in the draft scheme in Nelson and Brierfield are that they are simply not necessary. If it works (as by and large it does) why try to fix it? COLNE/PENDLE CENTRAL Both schemes propose the same Pendle Central division. It is a pity that part of Marsden has to be included and the WF polling district of Waterside excluded, thus preventing the formation of a “perfect division”! From the point of view of Colne itself, the new division will be an improvement. My recommendation is that the bland name Pendle Central should be dropped and it should be named “Colne”. I doubt that a lot of people in Marsden would object to that. SUMMARY A lot of these things that seem obvious to many local people are not obvious on a map, particularly if the contour lines are not prominent, and local traffic flows and bus services are not clearly shown. It is my submission that while there is no obvious ideal solution to the county division boundaries in Pendle, the LCC counter-proposal is much better than the draft scheme. It avoids the undesirable two- member division anomaly, it involves less disruption (an important consideration in a three-tier system), and it will, I firmly believe, be clearly more acceptable to most people in Pendle. .