Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 322 LOCAL GOVERNirfKHT BOUNDARY COAIMISSIOH FOR ENGLA1ID REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KGB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison PH To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Rochdale in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 28 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Rochdale Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Greater Manchester County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3. Rochdale Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consul- tation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that in metropolitan districts there shall be elections by thirds* Section 6(2)(b) of the Act requires that every metropolitan district shall be divided into wards each returning a number of councillors divisible by three. The Rochdale Borough Council's draft scheme was prepared accordingly. 5. Rochdale Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation on 27 April 1976. They proposed to divide the area into 20 wards each returning 3 members to form a council of 60. 6. We considered the draft scheme, the comments which had been made on it, and an alternative scheme .for a 60-member council from a local political party. '.f^\ We decided to adopt the council's draft scheme as the basis for our proposals but to make some modifications. 7* We decided to accept, on the ground of community interest, a suggestion for *i •. ' • altering part of the boundary between the proposed Norden and Bamford,ward and the proposed Spotland ward. We thought that a change in part of the boundary between the proposed Healey and Smallbridge wards, and in part of the boundary i * ' , r between the proposed Middleton North and Middleton South wards, might improve . the standard of representation in those areas. •'''*' 8. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraph 7 above, and to a number of minor adjustments to ward boundaries recommended by the Ordnance Survey, we decided that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements for the Borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 9. On 31 January 1977 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Borough Council's draft scheme. The Borough Council were asked to make these draft proposals and the accompanying map, which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 1 April 1977« 10. Rochdale Borough Council suggested that the boundary between 2 wards should be adjusted and that there should be a change to one of the proposed ward names. 11. We also received comments on our draft proposals from a political party, three political associations, two councillors and three private individuals. All suggested amendments to the draft proposals. We considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the 1972-Act, and at our request, Mr D W Hay was appointed an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 12. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Civic Hall, Middleton on 10 November 1977. A copy of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 13. In the light of the information gained at the meeting, and from his inspection of the area the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be confirmed subject to certain modifications specified in his report. These modifications were related to boundary adjustments between the following proposed wards:- Healey and Smallbridge; Brimrod and Deeplish, Spotland, and Norden and Bamford; Heywood South, Middleton West and Middleton Central; Middleton North and Middleton Central. 14. The Assistant Commissioner also recommended changing the names of the proposed Smallbridge ward, and Newbold and Wardleworth ward, to Smallbridge and Wardleworth ward,and Newbold ward, respectively. 15. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to these amendments, we decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals. 16. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3. PUBLICATION 17. In accordance with Section 6o(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Rochdale Borough Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without the map) are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. L.S. Signed: EDMUND COMPTON (Chairman) JOHN M RANKIN (Deputy Chairman) PHYLLIS BOWDEN T BROCKBANK MICHAEL CHISHOLM D P HARRISON R R THORNTON LESLIE GRIMSHAW (Secretary) ^ SCHEDULE 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR I-TMGLAND •oooooo—- Review of Electoral Boundaries Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale -—oooooo Local Meeting held at the Civic Hall, Middleton 10th November, 1977 oooooo REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Donald W. Hay. November, 1977< To the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Review of Electoral Boundaries for the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale Local Meeting held at the Civic Hall, Middleton st 10.30 a.m. on 10th November, 1977 Report and Recommendations of Assistant Commissioner 1. In accordance with the Commission's consultation letter of the 26th August, 1975> addressed to John Towey, Bsq., the Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, the Metropolitan Borough prepared a draft scheme of electoral representation for the Borough and submitted the scheme to the Commission for consideration. The Commission, on the 31st January, 1977> wrote to the Chief Executive indicating that they had now considered the draft scheme and comments put to them on the subject matter of the electoral arrangements for the Metropolitan Borough, and issued a memorandum describing their draft proposals and enclosed a map showing the suggested ward boxindarier., together with a description thereof. 2. The Commission's draft proposals were as follows :- Name o£ './ard No. of Councillors Balderstone 3 Brimrod and Deeplish 3 Castleton 3 Central and Palinge 3 Healey 3 Keywocd Worth 3 Reywood South 3 Heywood V/est . 3 Littleborough 3 Middleton Central 3 Middleton East 3 Middleton North 3 Hiddleton 'South 3 Middleton West i ^-f - 1 - Name of Ward No. of Councillors Milnrow 3 Newbold and Wardleworth 3 Norden and Bamford 3 Smallbridge 3 Spotland 3 Wardle 3 3. Following publication and deposit of the Commission's draft proposals, comments were received by the Commission ar: follows :- (a) Metropolitan Borough Council of Rochdale suggested that 206 electors be transferred from the proposed Healey Ward to the proposed Smallbridge Ward and that this ward should be re-named Smallbridge and Wardleworth as this name more accurately described the geographical area covered by it. (b) Middleton Conservative Association objected to the proposed ward boundaries for the five wards in Middleton, (c) County Councillor J. P. Berry made an identical submission to (b), (d) Rochdale District Labour Party made proposals for the boundary of the Brimrod and Deeplish ward, which they felt would be more acceptable "when examined against the criteria of population, natural communities, geographic and recognisable boundaries." (e) Heywood Conservative and Unionist Association proposed different boundaries for the Heywood South ward, community feeling being the main factor, (f) Rochdale Conservative and Unionist Association supported the Heywood Conservative and Unionist Association's proposals for Heywood South ward.