County Councillor submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from County Councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Alf Clempson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: LCC

Comment text:

As the sitting County Councillor for Poulton le Fylde, I have discussed the proposed Divisons with many residents. I have had overwhelming feedback that the proposals for the Division of Poulton le Fylde to stay as it is, is the correct one. The division is in a cul de sac between Fylde and the unitary of . The town has a centre and is surrounded in residential areas and the numbers are within the desireable projected number of residents. Poulton is a well established town with historic boundaries that has many residents groups, clubs, etc and a very distinct identity. I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6546 08/01/2016 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 December 2015 14:27 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: LGBC Boundary Revbiew draft Proposal for Attachments: LGBC Boundary Review draft recommendations.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: Cllr Munsif Dad Sent: 22 December 2015 14:22 To: reviews Subject: LGBC Boundary Revbiew draft Proposal for Hyndburn

Hello, Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to contribute comments and views on the draft recommendation by the boundary commission. As the current County Councillor for ( West) I have seen the draft recommendation for the Accrington West and Central ward in (Hyndburn) for Lancashire County Council and I must say that I fuuly agree with the proposal. It makes every sense to exclude the ward ED from my previous proposal. I fully support and endorse the Boundary Commissions draft proposal for Accrington West and Oswaldtwistle Central which includes the following polling stations (FA, FB, FC, FD, HD, EA, EB, EC, IA). I also support the Boundary commissions proposal for all six ward in Hyndburn. I have attached a PDF file for the Hyndburn Wards.

County Councillor Munsif Dad JP

1 Local Government Boundary Commission Boundary Review draft Recommendations

Name 2015 2021 Difference Variance Lancs avg (%) (2021) , , CLM & Altham 20,140 20,312 -927 -8.4% Accrington North 10,253 10,330 -753 -7.0% Accrington South 10,115 10,206 -877 -7.9% Accrington West & Oswaldtwistle Central 10,129 10,246 -837 -7.6% Oswaldtwistle 10,103 10,103 -980 -8.8% HYNDBURN 60,740 61,197 Lancashire County Division Average: 2015 – 10,709; 2012 - 11,083

Please could you confirm this is the case. Many thanks Yours sincerely,

Gina Dowding County Councillor: Lancaster Central

2

Electoral data - LANCASTER

Using this sheet: Fill in the cells for each polling district. Please make sure that the names of each parish, parish ward, district ward and county division are correct and consistant. Check your data in the cells to

Scroll right to see the second table

What is the Is this polling Is this polling district Which county division is Is this polling district Which district ward is this polling What is the What is the polling Is there any other description district contained in contained in a group this polling district in? This contained in a parish? If district in? This columm is not current forecast district you use for this area? a parish ward? If of parishes with a joint columm is not essential, not, leave this cell blank. essential, but may help you. electorate? electorate? code? not, leave this cell parish council? If not, but may help you.

Polling Grouped parish Existing Existing county Electorate Electorate Description of area Parish Parish ward district council district/borough/city ward division June 2015 MONTH 2021

Little and Even EX1 Example 1 Little Example Example Rural Example 480 502 Littler Little and Even EX2 Example 2 Even Littler Example Example Rural Example 67 68 Littler EX3 Example 3 Medium Example Example Rural Example 893 897 Big Example EX4 Example 4 Big Example Example Town Example 759 780 East Big Example EX5 Example 5 Big Example Example Town Example 803 824 West

HECA Central No 1 Heysham Central Heysham 1030 1,037 HECB Heysham Central No 2 Heysham Central Heysham 2461 2,478 HENC Heysham North No 3 Heysham North Heysham 688 693 HESA Heysham South No 1 Heysham South Heysham 2344 2,360 HESB Heysham South No 2 Heysham South Heysham 2827 2,847 OVEA Middleton Middleton Overton Heysham 502 506 OVEB Overton (Heysham) Overton Heysham 407 410 OVEC Overton Overton Overton Heysham 849 855 OVED Heaton with Oxcliffe Heaton with Oxcliffe Rural Overton Heysham 57 57 CASA Castle No 1 Castle Lancaster Central 1253 1,262 CASB Castle No 2 Castle Lancaster Central 774 779 MARA Marsh No 1 Marsh Lancaster Central 1342 1,351 MARB Marsh No 2 Marsh Lancaster Central 2281 2,297 SCWA West No 1 (Part 1) Scotforth West Lancaster Central 1751 1,763 SCWB Scotforth West No 1 (Part 2) Scotforth West Lancaster Central 1131 1,139 SCWD Scotforth West No 3 Scotforth West Lancaster Central 1155 1,163 SCWE Scotforth West No 5 Scotforth West Lancaster Central 393 396 BLKA Bulk No 1 Bulk Lancaster East 1781 1,794 BLKB Bulk No 2 Bulk Lancaster East 1527 1,538 BLKC Bulk No 3 Bulk Lancaster East 1974 1,988 CASC Castle No 3 Castle Lancaster East2330 2,346 JOGA John O'Gaunt No 1 John O'Gaunt Lancaster East 1036 1,043 JOGB John O'Gaunt No 1B John O'Gaunt Lancaster East 573 577 JOGC John O'Gaunt No 2 John O'Gaunt Lancaster East 1354 1,364 ELLB Ellel North (part 1) Ellel North Ellel Lancaster Rural East 603 607 ELLC Ellel North (Part 2) Ellel North Ellel Lancaster Rural East 893 899 ELLD Ellel South (Part 1) Ellel South Ellel Lancaster Rural East 370 373 ELLE Ellel South (Part 2) Ellel South Ellel Lancaster Rural East 391 394 ELLF Over Wyresdale Ellel Lancaster Rural East 243 245 HALT Halton Halton-with-Aughton Halton-with-Aughton Lancaster Rural East 2071 2,086 LLLA Roeburndale Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 60 60 LLLB Wray-with-Botton Wray-with-Botton Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 429 432 LLLC Tatham Tatham Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 358 361 LLLD Claughton Claughton Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 104 105 LLVA Caton No 1 Caton-with-Littledale Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 1277 1,286 LLVB (part of) Quernmore Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 142 143 LLVC Caton No 2 Caton-with-Littledale Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 984 991 LLVD Quernmore (part of) Quernmore Lower Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 336 338 ULVA Ireby Ireby and Leck Ireby Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 60 60 ULVB Leck Ireby and Leck Leck Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 137 138 ULVC Burrow with Burrow (part) Burrow-with-Burrow Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 74 75 ULVD Cantsfield Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 83 84 ULVE Tunstall Tunstall Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 124 125 ULVF Burrow with Burrow (part) Burrow-with-Burrow Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 82 83 ULVH Hornby Hornby-with-Farleton Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 637 641 ULVI Melling with Wrayton Melling-with-Wrayton Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 250 252 ULVJ Wennington Wennington Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 108 109 ULVK Whittington Whittington Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural East 296 298 CARA No 1 Carnforth Town CounciCarnforth Town Carnforth and Millhead Lancaster Rural North 1848 1,861 CARB Carnforth No 2 Carnforth Town CounciCarnforth Town Carnforth and Millhead Lancaster Rural North 1186 1,194 CARC Carnforth No 3 Carnforth Town CounciCarnforth Town Carnforth and Millhead Lancaster Rural North 481 484 CARD Carnforth No 4 Carnforth Town CounciCrag Bank Carnforth and Millhead Lancaster Rural North 858 864 CARE Carnforth No 5 Warton Millhead Carnforth and Millhead Lancaster Rural North 392 395 KELA Arkholme Arkholme-with-Cawood Kellet Lancaster Rural North 286 288 KELB Borwick Kellet Lancaster Rural North 155 156 KELC Priest Hutton Kellet Lancaster Rural North 164 165 KELD Nether Kellet Kellet Lancaster Rural North 524 528 KELE Over Kellet Kellet Lancaster Rural North 621 625 SILA Silverdale Silverdale Silverdale Lancaster Rural North 1398 1,408 SILB Yealand Redmayne Silverdale Lancaster Rural North 305 307 ULVG Gressingham Upper Lune Valley Lancaster Rural North 145 146 WARA Warton Warton Warton Warton Lancaster Rural North 1505 1,516 WARB Yealand Conyers Warton Lancaster Rural North 165 166 JOGD John O'Gaunt No 3 John O'Gaunt Lancaster South East 1890 1,903 JOGE John O'Gaunt No 4 John O'Gaunt Lancaster South East 976 983 SCEA Scotforth East No 1 Scotforth East Lancaster South East 1800 1,813 SCEB Scotforth East No 2 Scotforth East Lancaster South East 1724 1,736 SCWC Scotforth West No 2 Scotforth West Lancaster South East 1167 1,175 UNIA University University and Scotforth RuraLancaster South East 1301 1,310 UNIB University No 2 University and Scotforth RuraLancaster South East 113 114 UNIC Scotforth Scotforth Scotforth University and Scotforth RuraLancaster South East 195 196 UNID Burrow Heights Scotforth Burrow Heights University and Scotforth RuraLancaster South East 72 73 UNIE Alexandra Park (Ellel) Ellel University West University and Scotforth RuraLancaster South East 457 460 ELLA Cockerham Ellel Lancaster South East 572 576 ELLG Thurnham Thurnham Ellel Lancaster South East 525 529 BARA Bare No 1 Town Cou Bare North Bare Morecambe North 3095 3,117 BARB Bare No 2 Morecambe Town Cou Bare South East Bare Morecambe North 1308 1,317 BOSA Bolton and Slyne No 1 Bolton-le-Sands North Bolton and Slyne Morecambe North 2578 2,596 BOSB Bolton and Slyne No 2 Bolton-le-Sands South Bolton and Slyne Morecambe North 819 825 BOSC Bolton and Slyne No 3 Slyne with Hest Bolton and Slyne Morecambe North 2686 2,705 BARC Bare No 3 Morecambe Town Cou Bare South West Bare Morecambe South 1277 1,286 POLA Poulton No 1 Morecambe Town Cou Out Moss Lane Poulton Morecambe South 494 497 TORA No 1 Morecambe Town Cou Torrisholme Torrisholme Morecambe South 2115 2,130 TORB Torrisholme No 4 Morecambe Town Cou Torrisholme Torrisholme Morecambe South 1615 1,626 WESA Westgate No 1 Morecambe Town Cou Westgate Westgate Morecambe South 805 811 WESB Westgate No 2 Morecambe Town Cou Westgate Westgate Morecambe South 1449 1,459 WESC Westgate No 3 Morecambe Town Cou Westgate Westgate Morecambe South 1789 1,802 WESD Westgate (Heaton) Heaton with Oxcliffe Westgate Westgate Morecambe South 994 1,001 WESE Westgate (Lowlands Road) Morecambe Town Cou Lowlands Road Westgate Morecambe South 639 643 HARA Harbour No 1 Morecambe Town Cou Harbour Harbour Morecambe West 2513 2,531 HARB Harbour No 2 Morecambe Town Cou Harbour Harbour Morecambe West 2845 2,865 HENA Heysham North No 1 Morecambe Town Cou Heysham North Heysham North Morecambe West 879 885 HENB Heysham North No 2 Morecambe Town Cou Heysham North Heysham North Morecambe West 1928 1,942 POLB Poulton No 2 Morecambe Town Cou Poulton Poulton Morecambe West 1253 1,262 POLC Poulton No 3 Morecambe Town Cou Poulton Poulton Morecambe West 1627 1,638 POLD Poulton No 4 Morecambe Town Cou Poulton Poulton Morecambe West 358 361 SKEA East No 1 Skerton East Skerton 1405 1,415 SKEB Skerton East No 2 Skerton East Skerton 1525 1,536 SKEC Skerton East No 3 Skerton East Skerton 988 995 SKED Skerton East No 4 Skerton East Skerton 1151 1,159 SKWA Skerton West No 1 Skerton West Skerton 1044 1,051 SKWB Skerton West No 2 Skerton West Skerton 1622 1,633 SKWC Skerton West No 3 Skerton West Skerton 381 384 SKWD Skerton West No 4 Skerton West Skerton 1535 1,546 SKWE Skerton West (Heaton) Heaton with Oxcliffe Winster Park Skerton West Skerton 131 132 SKWF Skerton West (Lune Drive) Heaton with Oxcliffe Lune Drive Skerton West Skerton 140 141 SKWG Skerton West (Roeburn DrivHeaton with Oxcliffe Roeburn Skerton West Skerton 477 480 Check my data 2015 2021 Number of councillors: 10 10 District electorate: 106,222 106,968 District average electorate per cllr: 10,622 10,697 Lancashire number of cllrs 84 84 Lancashire electorate 899,555 930,978 Lancashire average electorate 10,709 11,083 Scroll left to see the first table

Fill in the name of each ward once. Fill in the number of Do not type in these cells. These cells will show you the electorate and variance. You can also use the drop down list councillors per ward They change depending what you enter in the table to the left. to select the ward.

Number of cllrs Electorate June Electorate Name of Electoral Division Variance 2015 Variance 2021 per division 2015 MONTH 2021

Heysham 1 11,165 4% 11,243 1.4%

Lancaster Central 1 10,080 -6% 10,151 -8.4% Lancaster East 1 10,575 -1% 10,649 -3.9% Lancaster Rural East 1 10,112 -6% 10,183 -8.1%

Lancaster Rural North 1 10,033 -6% 10,103 -8.8% Lancaster South East 1 10,792 1% 10,868 -1.9% Morecambe North 1 10,486 -2% 10,560 -4.7% Morecambe South 1 11,177 4% 11,255 1.6% Morecambe West 1 11,403 6% 11,483 3.6% Skerton 1 10,399 -3% 10,472 -5.5%

-100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100%

-100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100% -100%

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Mohammed Iqbal

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Pendle Borough Councillor

Comment text:

the proposal by the commission in respect of the Brierfield and Nelson West & Pendle Hill seat is fundamentally wrong on the following grounds: The Bradley ward in Nelson is one of the most deprived wards in the country and the community is inter-linked. The proposal to split the polling areas BM,BN,BO and allocate these to the new seat of Pendle Hill makes no sense as there is no community,social,economic link between these areas and the remainder of the Pendle Hill division. In addition, Bradley ward is currently part of a Lottery Big Local project and the risk is that by placing some of the most deprived streets with some of the most affluent areas in Pendle will severely affect the ability to attract any help from organisations. The community in Bradley has no links with other areas within the new Pendle Hill seat as neither does the Reedley Hallows Parish have any link with the proposed Brierfield and Nelson West seat. I would propose that the following change should be made to the proposal: the parish of Reedley Hallows currently proposed to be in Brierfield and Nelson West is allocated to Pendle Hill division The areas in Bradley ward currently proposed to be in Pendle Hill are allocated to Brierfield and Nelson West

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6211 19/11/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Mohammed IQBAL

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The specific proposals in respect of the newly named Pendle Hill and Brierfield and Nelson West are incorrect on the draft recommendations by the Boundary Commission. They break up communities and long established links. In addition, the area split up creates a massive indifference in terms of transport and socio-economic links. The revised proposals agreed by Lancashire County Council at their meeting on 17 December are the correct and most sensible ones taking into account the figures required.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6660 11/01/2016

Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank London SW1P 4QP

11th January 2016

Dear Sirs,

Lancashire County Council Electoral Divisions – Lancaster District Division Boundaries

I wish to make the following submission to the boundary commission review of Lancashire County Council electoral divisions with regard to the Lancaster district division boundaries. Having reviewed the County Council submission to the boundary commission I agree with the County Council recommendations except for those affecting Lancaster Central and Lancaster South East divisions.

Lancaster Central (currently too large). My proposed arrangement for a new Lancaster central division comprises Marsh A&B, Castle A&B and Scotforth West A,B,D&E. This arrangement creates a more compact ward retaining key areas with a strong sense of community within the division. Marsh, and the west divisions of Castle ward, and Scotforth West E have distinct and clear identities and this proposal retains them in the division.

Whilst preferable to retain full city council wards within the division, it is recognised that this is not always feasible. This proposal, however keeps the integrity of my Scotforth West ward on the west side of the A6 in one division. There is a natural community in the Greaves area of Lancaster made up of polling districts of Scotforth West A, B and further south with Scotforth West D.

The communities living in Scotforth West A & B are in the Greaves area of Lancaster and focussed around St Paul's primary school on the west side of the A6, the scout group on Dorrington Road, Greaves, Dorrington Road Park and the local shops. There is a strong identity of living in 'Greaves' among its residents. Scotforth West B polling district is at the heart. To move Scotforth West B out of this division would means creating a 'hole' in the community, and would not be understood or considered ‘logical’ locally.

Lancaster South East (currently too small). My proposed arrangement for a new Lancaster South East division comprises Scotforth West C, John O Gaunt D&E, Scotforth East A&B, Uni A,B,C,D&E and Ellel A&G

Scotforth West C is on the east side of the A6 and has a more natural sense of identity with the Bowerham area of Lancaster, residents in this area already focus activities around Bowerham primary school and the small retail community on Bowerham Road. Therefore we suggest that Scotforth West C is included with Lancaster South East division and joins neighbouring John O Gaunt ward polling districts. The other polling divisions have a natural sense of community.

Similarly Ellel ward polling districts Ellel A and Ellel G ie the villages of Glasson Dock, Condor Green, Thurnham and Cockerham and surrounding rural areas have to a large extent their own identities and sense of communities and are not naturally linked with any other specific parts of Lancaster communities: (In fact many people in Cockerham identify more naturally with Wyre Borough Council – but that is not for discussion here!). Residents are therefore as well positioned in terms of identity with Lancaster South East division as with any other as there is a geographical flow to the neighbouring polling district Uni E (Burrow Heights).

Yours faithfully

City Councillor Abi Mills

Scotforth West, Lancaster

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Gareth Molineux

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Lancashire County Council

Comment text:

As a district Councillor that represents the Overton ward of Great Harwood, I can see first hand the benefit of working with other Councillors to ensure that the proper representation of the electorates views are heard. The three townships of Great Harwood, Rishton and Clayton-le- moors all share common links. And the clear divide of the M65 gives the electorate a definite natural boundary to ensure that it is clear who represents them.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6525 08/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Mike Otter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Lancashire County Council

Comment text:

Dear Sir/Madam. My comments are about Farington No 20 on the map. We in Farington have no synergy with Moss Side Leyland, we have are more than happy to be linked to Lostock Hall as Lostock Hall in the past has had many links with Farington. I am sure that with some tweaking of the Leyland boundary using natural lines ie roads the electoral numbers could be rebalanced. Yours Faithfully. County Counillor Mike Otter

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6594 11/01/2016

Dear Sir/Madam,

Having read the recommendations for the boundary review with particular regards to the 8 new District divisions.

I must register my deep disappointment that despite the aims to keep a communities together in a division your proposals actually split up the community of Buckshaw Village even further . It does not even seemed to have recognised my original attempt does even

This means the main reason for a review being triggered in the first place, that was caused by a growing electorate in the current Chorley North division, will actually see the division split and village cut into half.

The polling area 10c going into a new Cuerden , Clayton and Whittle division and polling area 02c going in the new and Buckshaw division.

Making a rather confusing arrangement when South Ribble already has part of Buckshaw within its boundary even more confusing when in fact only 1/3 of Buckshaw will be in the new division and completely ignores the name of Astley Village contained with in its title. A more neutral name is required.

Under the new recommendations Buckshaw Village have 3 representatives for this new growing and developing community that will be hugely unbalanced and extremely unfair on its residents when compared against all the other communities in Chorley.

The analysis the Chorley Divisions variances of voters again tends to be rather biased in favour of certain divisions and unfair to the rest of the divisions. This could and should be addressed in this new boundary review.

Therefore, I submit a proposal that actually uses the county officers plan B proposal which was not put forward by the council to the commission for consideration. Plan B produced by LCC democratic officers was balanced, recognised population trends/future population forecasts, the communities themselves and was non political formulated.

1  The draft proposal for Chorley RURAL EAST has a variance of ‐10.42 exceeding the 10% limit, and can be easily remedied.  In the LGBCE draft proposals, only 2 of 8 Divisions have variances less than 3% whereas the Lancashire County Council B Plan has 4 of 8.  In the LGBCE draft proposals, the ranged between lowest ‐10.42% and highest 6.51% was 16.93%  In the Lancashire County Council B Plan, the lowest is ‐8.13% to the highest 6.14%, a range of 14.27%  The Lancashire County Plan B brings the whole of Buckshaw Village within the Chorley Council boundary 02C Buckshaw Village and 10C Whittle le Woods West under the same Division satisfying calls from residents in the new build village. It is more than possible that when a review of Chorley Council takes place, 02C and 10C would together make a very natural Ward building block.  The Lancashire County Plan B continues to bring together 04C Coppull West with 13A Coppull East and 13B Coppull East.

LGBCE Draft LCC B Between 10 and 11 % variance 1 Between 9 and 10 % variance Between 8 and 9 % variance 1 Between 7 and 8 % variance 3 1 Between 6 and 7 % variance 2 1 Between 5 and 6 % variance 1 Between 4 and 5 % variance Between 3 and 4 % variance Between 2 and 3 % variance 2 1 Between 1 and 2 % variance 2 Between 0 and 1 % variance 1

Therefore I would recommend giving much greater weight to the officer produced Lancashire County Council Plan B proposal that would address many issues and correct a rather unbalance review. It would be closer to the County Council electorate share level and have no divisions outside the 10% parameters.

It would go along way to keep Buckshaw Village, Chorley together and resolve ready for any future District boundary review review and would have no negative impacts on other natural communities, that the new recommendations you have drawn up create.

Yours sincerely,

County Councillor Mark Perks Chorley North Division Lancashire County Council

2

Overwhelmingly the main objection is that you are trying to ignore the better professional information on projected population and electorate numbers up to Jun 2021 (and on communities’ links for that matter eg with ) that the Chief Executive’s staff (and also via local Borough and County councillors) have provided.

In particular, as stated on page 42 (end of your Table A1), “Electorate figures are based on information by Lancashire County Council”. You may not have realised that the bases (varied!) of the electorate projections for 2021 countywide, collated and accepted as inconsistent by LCC officers and then submitted from county hall to yourselves, had flaws ‐ especially for Ribble Valley figures (LCC 0fficers’ submitted RV total electorate of only 48,297) which the RVBC Chief Executive (Mr Marshal Scott) independently soon realised needed correcting upwards especially in existing RVNE and Clitheroe divisions. When LCC officers were informed of the revised RV projection of a figure around 54k, and backed up by summary data, they declined (possibly on instruction from their Labour masters?) to arrange for the revised RV electorate projections to be forwarded to the LGBCE.

Therefore Ribble Valley Borough Council, via RVBC chief executive, put forward to the Commission a most sensible and agreeable proposal for county divisions based on the authoritative revised electorate projection. RV constituency conservative association, and also the LCC significant Conservative Group* (comprising 35 members compared with Labour's 39 out of existing 84 LCC total), put forward similar if not in effect same proposals (5 Divisions) – using the RVBC officers' revised electorate figures. *ATTACHED is a copy of the latter's together with supporting Map.

In relation to the above‐mentioned attached schedule of projected electorates for each Polling District / Parish with new Divisions totals and the distinguishing colours on the 5‐division Map clockwise, please note: ‐ PINK ‐ with Bowland divn (largely as existing) – but rather new name of Ribble Valley NW**

‐ YELLOW – Clitheroe West (new divn) ‐ but rather more appropriate name of Ribble Valley Central

‐ BLUE – Clitheroe East (modified RVNE) ‐ but rather retaining the name Ribble Valley North East

‐ GREEN – the new divn of Ribble Valley South East (linked communities around and including the growing Whalley large village)

‐ ORANGE ‐ Ribble Valley South West (as existing RVSW – no changes necessary ***).

** An amendment to this (not as yet reflected in the attached Map etc) would be to retain the Parish of Dutton (ref CW) in LwB/RVNW division ‐ as requested by the County Cllr for Longridge with Bowland, on behalf of and/or with Dutton Parish Council view.

*** As regards Ribble Valley SW division in the 'LCC' (Labour) / LGBCE proposal ‐ for what may be merely a numerical reason of LCC (Labour) or yourselves, I don’t see the logic of you adding in a couple of parish councils (or parts thereof) from existing RVNE (Great Mitton & Little Mitton) and part of a parish from LwB (Hurst Green/Stonyhurst part of parish of Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley) – and by crossing respective Rivers Calder, Ribble and Hodder.

2 Little Mitton (ref CT2) and Great Mitton (ref SB) have the affinity with Whalley parish (ref CV) & Whalley village amenities (all located in existing RVNE divn ‐ and in the locally supported RVBC‐proposed new RVSE divn). Furthermore there’s an inherent change, and future complication, from the draft recommendations ‐ eg in the case of the Aighton, Bailey & Chaigley Parish Council. On page 30 (among Draft Recommendations for ‘Parish electoral arrangements’) paragraph 42 means that in future there would be 2 county cllrs relating to (and presumably attending) the same Parish Council meetings! This is because the Commission so far wish Chaigley part of the Parish (2 parish cllrs) to keep with LwB division; and Hurst Green & Stonyhurst parish ward (4 parish cllrs) to be with RVSW.

In the Commission’s preferred 4‐member outcome so far, it is ridiculous for a growing Clitheroe divn to have a variance of +13% from LCC average electorate per CCllr ‐ especially as that variance above Commission’s own threshold will become an even more unacceptable approx +30% using the RVBC revised electorate projections! (and existing RVNE even higher)

In your Table A1 the next three highest variances are all not greater than 10% (Chorley Rural East, Lancaster Rural North and Nelson East). As indicated (again) ‐ on page 1 of the draft recommendations document ‐ a significant trigger for the review has been that some LCC existing divisions had a + or ‐ variance greater than 10% from the starting point of LCC average electorate per division!

Incidentally in neighbouring Pendle District to Ribble Valley, it can be seen that there is a ‘Pendle Hill’ new divn in the LGBCE draft recommendations. Apart from the fact that the western slopes of Pendle Hill are in Ribble Valley boro’, the LCC draft Corporate Strategy (via LCC Cabinet 24th Nov 2015 & Full Council 15th Dec) has associated 34 ‘service planning areas’ (SPAs) countywide. One of those SPAs is being called Pendle Hill (comprising Ribble Valley, excluding Longridge‐with‐Bowland and southern parts of RVSW, and including some western parts of Pendle boro’). Thus some potential added confusions ahead in LCC & partners’ services planning for assumed communities?!

To re‐iterate the main point in Ribble Valley, because of the clear inadequacy, for proper representation, of the existing 4 county division seats in Ribble Valley to cover the substantially increasing population, and thus growing electorate numbers, particularly in existing RVNE and Clitheroe divisions, the Boundary Commission need to re‐look urgently and properly please at the submissions made for 5 Divisions (which are backed up by verifiable electorate projections by the Borough Council).

Kind Regards,

County Councillor Alan Schofield CCllr for Ribble Valley SW

3 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100

Bradley Ward is one of the most deprived areas in the country and the whole ward is currently subject to a Lottery Big Local grant of £1 million over 10 years. The Big Local Trust is made up of residents from across the ward and key agencies including Lancashire County Council. The draft recommendations would split this urban ward, isolating a big area and placing it into one of the most affluent and rural parts of the Borough.

There are no transport links between this area of Nelson, with other parts of the ‘Pendle Hill’ division, whereas there are public transport links from this area across the whole of the current ‘Brierfield and Nelson North’ division. There are community groups, town council, and borough council links between BM, BN, BO and the ‘Brierfield and Nelson West’ division, but there are no similar links with the ‘Pendle Hill’ division. The Labour Leader of Pendle Council, described the proposed inclusion of these areas in ‘Pendle Hill’ and the inclusion of the parish of Reedley Hallows in ‘Brierfield and Nelson West’ as “fundamentally flawed”.

BL polling district is strongly linked with BM, BN and BO, with the majority of residents in BM, BN, BO traveling through BL to reach Nelson town centre, where they would do their shopping, go for worship or use community facilities. Similarly in terms of school catchment areas, all four of these polling districts are served by schools within the Bradley Ward. Therefore this ward should not be split as is suggested in the draft recommendations.

Argument behind moving Polling District BS, BT, RC, RA1 & RA2 (3,876 voters)

The current ‘Pendle West’ division for which I represent, which forms the basis of the proposed ‘Pendle Hill’, is a collection of parishes, including Barrowford, Barley‐with‐Wheatley Booth, Goldshaw Booth, Higham‐with‐West Close Booth, Old Laund and Roughlee Booth and Reedley Hallows. This area is characterised by a mixture of homes predominantly of a rural or semi‐rural settings, with a much higher proportion of detached or semi‐detached properties than the rest of the borough. The level of car ownership in this area is high, with high levels of employment amongst working age residents, many of whom commute out of their own area for work. Each area has its own distinct characteristics, community groups and facilities, but shared interests such as protection of the countryside, protecting the built environment, good quality schools and community bind these different areas together. There is also a higher proportion of retired people in these areas.

The Polling District of BS, BT, RC, RA1 & RA2 all share these characteristics, indeed that is why it currently makes sense for RC, RA1 and RA2 to be in the current ‘Pendle West’ division. It is therefore logical for them to be in the new ‘Pendle Hill’ division. Indeed some of the addresses that fall within the RC polling district are actually “Old Laund” addresses, for example all the properties on Cuckstool Lane.

The BS and BT polling districts are small (just 830 electors) but share similar characteristics to RA1 & RA2, however the residents of this area are currently very dissatisfied. The area falls within the Brierfield Parish, but this has only been the case since the last boundary change. They are dissatisfied because this area has no transport links, community groups or facilities with Brierfield. Many residents in this area have simply stopped voting in Borough Council and County Council elections, due to the level of apathy they feel in being linked with the town of Brierfield.

BS and BT do have a lot of similarities with the area currently covered by RA2. The Higher Reedley Road, which turns into the Walverden Road and the Hibson Road, runs through both areas and is a main bus route. Very few residents in this area would look towards Brierfield or Nelson when socialising. For socialising residents are much more likely to either go to nearby pubs in Harle Syke (in the part of which neighbours RA2) or the Pendleside Villages (which come under the proposed ‘Pendle Hill’ division). Similarly when shopping residents would travel to either Nelson or Burnley, not Brierfield.

As such it should be considered that this area has very little in common with the very urban “Brierfield and Nelson West” division, which covers the urban centres of Brierfield and Nelson. The “Brierfield and Nelson West” division, similar to its predecessor “Brierfield and Nelson North” division, will cover the urban cores of the towns of Brierfield and Nelson; mainly terraced housing, areas which suffer from multiple deprivation and a need for regeneration. Indeed if the draft proposals do go ahead, I believe that the residents in this areas will remain feeling dissatisfied and unrepresented for many years to come with the majority of resources being used in the more deprived parts of the proposed division.

3 My proposal would leave the RB polling district of the Reedley Ward in the “Brierfield and Nelson West” division, as this area is within the parish of Brierfield Town Council and actually covers part of the town centre of Brierfield. It is urban, densely populated and shares transport links, community groups, facilities, interests and identifiable boundaries with the rest of Brierfield. The links between RB and BQ and BR are very strong as together they form the town centre of Brierfield, with residents regularly walking between them for shopping, schools or worship. The principle primary school serving BQ and BR, is Pendle Primary Academy located on Walter Street in RB. The library, community centre, town hall, youth centre, post office and shops that serve RB are located in BR polling district. This area is indistinguishable from the rest of central Brierfield and should be in a division with “Brierfield” in its name. It is very different in identity and interests from the areas which make up ‘Pendle Hill’, or indeed the rest of the Reedley ward.

3. Providing effective and convenient local government

The draft recommendations are needlessly radical, do not make sense in terms of community identity, or providing effective local government, something which both myself and the current Councillor for Brierfield & Nelson North agree on.

The name ‘Pendle Hill’ will really only be identified with by around 1,500 voters who are currently resident in the Pendleside villages in this division and certainly not by voters in areas like BM, BN and BO. If my changes were adopted, as the division would only be 15% different from the current ‘Pendle West’ division, it would be better to keep the ‘Pendle West’ name.

My proposals for “Brierfield and Nelson West” would see only a small 11% change to the current “Brierfield and Nelson North” division, adding back in parts of Nelson and the missing part of Brierfield. Therefore the current name of “Brierfield and Nelson North” seems most fitting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I feel there is much in the LGBCE draft recommendations for Pendle that can be welcomed. As previously stated, I support the draft recommendations for the Nelson East, Pendle Central and Pendle Rural. However I feel that the ‘Pendle Hill’ and ‘Brierfield and Nelson West’ must be changed for the reasons I have set out, because as proposed they completely fail to reflect the communities residing within those area.

My proposal for changing these two division, delivers electoral equality (within the required 10% range), with much less dramatic changes (almost 6,000 fewer voters being moved between these two divisions), does not impact on any other proposed division in the , reflects local community identities and would deliver divisions that could be represented effectively.

I appreciate your consideration of these arguments and look forward to seeing the final recommendations.

Kind Regards

County Councillor Christian Wakeford Pendle West Division | Lancashire County Council Conservative Group Press Officer

Stretch your skills and knowledge on an adult learning course this spring.

********************

This e-mail contains information intended for the addressee only.

4

In terms of the proposal for a and single member seat, the division would strongly reflect the identity and interests of local communities. Both are townships, as opposed to having parish councils; both are towns with most people employed in manufacturing, as opposed to dormitory communities; both are former West Riding of Yorkshire Urban Districts not well suited to being subsumed in a two member, predominantly Lancashire County Palatine, seat. The two towns are served by a local newspaper called the ‘Barnoldswick and Earby Times’, underlining the links between them. The remaining part of the LGBCE proposal (+ Higherford), is well suited to being a ‘Rural’ division, with the parishes concerned having a great deal in common.

The proposal for two single member divisions would provide effective and convenient local government. The two townships have a commonality of problems and issues and residents would be better represented by a single member able to concentrate on the matters affecting such industrial based towns. Similarly, the rural, parished areas, would have similar needs to each other; again aiding effective discharge of responsibilities.

The two single member divisions would achieve good electoral equality. As mentioned above, there are strong community links between Barnoldswick and Earby; a recent example is the response to extensive flooding due to Storm Eva on Boxing Day, where the resilience of both communities was challenged. Mutual support between the two towns is helping us get through this crisis (something which, as county councillor, I have been very much involved with).

The proposed boundaries for the Barnoldswick and Earby and Rural divisions are very clear and as far as the two townships are concerned are well understood, being co-terminus with the Towns themselves. The towns of Barnoldswick and Earby have strong links via the public transport network, are mutually dependent in terms of employment, are linked through service provision (both public and private sector eg libraries and banks). An example from the last decade is a Government initiative which stimulated the creation of a social enterprise that saw upwards of £2 million being invested in both towns in infrastructure and job creation programmes.

In short, the new proposal put forward by the county council best meets all the criteria of the Commission and especially the community identity and interests of local residents. It has the support of all parties at the borough council, which has endorsed the proposal. It is supported by Barnoldswick Town Council. It has the support of many of the residents throughout the immediate area and those from across Pendle who see it as the best fit with the overall requirements.

I trust that the Commission will agree that this is a far better solution than the two member proposal put forward in the draft recommendations put forward in November.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this response.

David Whipp

2

I thank you for taking the time to consider my points.

Yours sincerely,

County Councillor Paul White Lancashire County Councillor for Pendle East.