sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aston (Birmingham ward), Pype Hayes Park

BIRMINGHAM ELECTORAL WARD BOUNDARIES SUBMISSION JANUARY 2016

On behalf of: Keith Hanson, Secretary, Labour Party Josh Jones, City Council Labour Group

Page 1 of 21

Introduction

Response to the Draft Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England

The draft recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for the north and west of the City reflected many of the proposals put forward by the Labour Group, in September 2015. The physical and community geography of the area is shaped by the historical boundary between and the remainder of Birmingham and by the M6 motorway, railways and River Cole. These features constrain options on boundaries that meet the statutory criteria.

Such features are less dominant in the south of the City. This may explain why the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations across parts of South Birmingham do not have the same level of support from residents as they have in the north of the City, as community views are not as constrained by physical geographical features. Even so, generally, the proposals by the Boundary Commission for the south of the City can be supported by the Labour Party once the conflict over specific community concerns is resolved.

Hence, this response by the Labour Party in Birmingham seeks to retain the Boundary Commission’s proposals for much of the city but with alternative ward arrangements in Balsall Heath, Moseley, and – areas where local communities have expressed the greatest concerns about the draft recommendations from the Boundary Commission. A few, minor adjustments are suggested beyond these areas, together with a number of ward name changes that better reflect the local identities of the proposed wards. Consequently, this response to the Boundary Commission maintains a Council size of 101 members, with 51one member wards and 25 two-member wards.

The tables on pages 3 - 21 provide ward-by-ward details of our response in the order presented in the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations report. Maps are provided along with this response: Map A which compares our original response with the Boundary Commission’s initial proposals; Map B which indicates where we have renamed Boundary Commission proposed wards; Map C which indicates the area of South- East Birmingham where we are suggesting new ward arrangements; and Map D which brings together the initial Boundary Commission proposals and our final proposals for the city as a whole.

Page 2 of 21

CITY CENTRE AND SURROUNDING AREA

# Ward No of Projected Electorate Forecast Comments Cllrs Electorate per Cllr Electoral 2021 Variance in 2021

1 2 15,576 7,788 -3% No amendment proposed. The use of the A38M from the M6 is a more impenetrable boundary to the south-east of the ward than Lichfield Road proposed in our earlier submission. located within Aston Park and Aston Villa FC are within the proposed ward. All identify with the ward and add a community and place interest to the clear and identifiable boundaries of the ward. 2 Birchfield 1 7,688 7,688 -5% No amendment proposed. Our earlier submission combined this area with an adjoining Handsworth Ward in a two-member ward centred on . The community identity commented on by the Boundary Commission for each of their proposed wards persuades us to accept these new ward arrangements as the wards comply with the statutory criteria. 3 Bordesley & 1 7,393 7,393 -8% No amendment proposed. Highgate The proposal put forward by the Boundary Commission is fully in line with the our view that the two communities of Bordesley &Highgate, neither with an electoral size that would justify a one-member ward, sit within a good and identifiable boundary.

4 Bordesley 1 7,470 7,470 -7% No amendment proposed. Green The proposal from the Boundary Commission reflects our own view on the appropriateness of this proposed ward. It is better to use a boundary at the south-east of the ward that proceeds along the back of houses in Page 3 of 21

Green Lane as proposed by the Boundary Commission, rather than along the middle of the road as in our own submission. 5 2 15,989 7,994 -1% Minor amendment proposed.

There has been some public comment on Edgbaston Cricket Ground not being in Edgbaston Ward, but it is not in Warwickshire either! More importantly, public matters/issues connected with the Ground affect the residents of the Balsall Heath and Moseley areas, so warding arrangements should reflect this situation.

We are now suggesting that the area bound by Sir Harry’s Road, Pershore Road, Priory Road and Bristol Road is put into Edgbaston ward to reflect its relationship with that corner of Edgbaston Ward that is bounded by Priory Road, Pershore Road and Bristol Road, but also to bring the electoral size of the ward nearer to the average number of electors per councillor for the city.

6 Handsworth 1 7,851 7,851 -3% No amendment proposed. Our earlier submission combined this area with the adjoining Handsworth Ward in a two-member ward centred on either side of Handsworth Park. The community identity commented on by the Boundary Commission for each of their proposed wards persuades us to accept these new ward arrangements as the other statutory criteria are also satisfied. 7 Handsworth 2 15,755 7,877 -2% No amendment proposed. Wood The proposed ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. 8 2 16,177 8,088 0% No amendment proposed. The Harborne ward proposed by the Boundary Commission reflects our own view that this ward comprises natural and recognised neighbourhoods within clear and identifiable boundaries. The use of the A456 (Hagley Road) as the northern boundary is a divide between the community to the south which looks to Harborne and the community to the north which relates to Bearwood and shopping facilities near to Five

Page 4 of 21

Ways, and to .

9 Holyhead 1 7,761 7,761 -4% No amendment proposed. The proposal from the Boundary Commission for Holyhead Ward reflects the identifiable community and clear boundaries recognised by our own submission. 10 2 15,389 7,695 -4% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission has recognised that a two-member ward proposal for the area to the west of and including much of the city centre represents the best balance between the statutory criteria, as was reflected in our own submission. The boundary to the rear of houses in Hagley Road is better than our own proposal to use a boundary along the middle of the road. 11 Lozells 1 7,903 7,903 -2% No amendment proposed. The characteristics of this ward, as proposed by the Boundary Commission, reflect the views expressed in our original submission. 12 1 8,617 8,617 +7% No amendment proposed. As stated in our response to the Boundary Commission proposal for Aston Ward, the use of the A38M, from the M6, is a better boundary to the west than in our earlier submission. The proposed ward has clear and identifiable boundaries and a community identity. 13 Newtown 1 7,763 7,763 -4% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission proposal for this ward community reflects identifiable and good and clear boundaries, as with our original submission. We have not suggested another name for the ward as the residential area around New John Street West has for many years been known as Newtown and was a ward within the City until 1982 when it was merged with Aston.

14 Summerfield 2 15,903 7,951 -1% No amendment proposed. As the Commission has recognised, the community identities and boundaries proposed for this ward reflect evidence received by the

Page 5 of 21

Commission, including in our own initial proposal that identified communities north of Hagley Road and out to the city boundary, relating to Bearwood in Sandwell MBC and with a proximity to Edgbaston Reservoir. 15 Winson Green 2 14,980 7,490 -7% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The Boundary Commission recognise the community identities and clear Jewellery and identifiable boundaries of this proposed ward that reflect our own Quarter & submission for this ward. However, further consideration was invited on Soho) the name of the ward and this we have done, suggesting that the historical connection referred to in our original submission could be used to name the ward as ‘Jewellery Quarter and Soho’.

Several hundred years ago, Matthew Boulton ensured the future of Birmingham’s jewellery industry – even now located in the south of the proposed ward in the Jewellery Quarter – with his home at Soho House, off Soho Road in the middle of the ward. Innovative manufacturing processes were introduced by Matthew Boulton and James Watt at the Soho Manufactory (now demolished) at Soho Road, Soho – next to his home.

The Jewellery Quarter does not relate to the central Ladywood residential area to the west of Sand Pits and Soho Road or to the proposed Newtown Ward. Indeed, transport connections are primarily north-south along the western boundary, Dudley Road and Sand Pits, Metro as the central spine and the eastern boundary of Soho Road and Great Hampton Street/Constitution Hill

EAST OF CITY CENTRE

16 Alum Rock 1 8,714 8,714 +8% No amendment proposed. Our earlier submission combined this ward with the adjoining Saltley Ward in a two-member ward between the railway lines to the south and Page 6 of 21

north. We accept that two one-member wards can be created within this envelope, using primarily the Alum Rock Road to divide the communities either side of this road. Both Alum Rock and Saltley should be retained as the names of these wards. 17 Bromford & 2 15,162 7,581 -6% No amendment proposed. As recognised in our earlier submission, this area of the city is physically constrained by the M6 to the north, the River Cole to the south and the city boundary to the east. The Boundary Commission proposal reflects these geographical boundaries, with the western boundary establishing a good balance with the other statutory criteria given the eastern constraint of the proposed Ward. 18 Garretts Green 1 8,065 8,065 0% No amendment proposed. (with removal By proposing two one-member wards, Garretts Green and Stechford of the East, south of the railway, a better community identity is realised than apostrophe with our original submission. (See also comments on the proposed previously Stechford East Ward which we are proposing to re-name Yardley North removed by Ward.) statutory instrument) However, we are aware that residents of the Gleneagles Road/ Duncroft Road area believe that these roads should be part of Stechford East/Yardley North and not Garretts Green, to which we would not object. 19 Glebe Farm 2 17,041 8,521 +6% No amendment proposed. &Tile Cross The boundaries of this ward are largely determined by the River Cole to the north, railway to the south and the city boundary to the east, as recognised in our earlier submission. A two-member ward provides the best balance between community identity and electoral equality – as stated by the Commission – rather than with two one-member wards within the same boundary envelope as there is no clear and identifiable community boundary.

20 Heartlands 1 8,079 8,079 0% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s comments reflect our earlier submission Page 7 of 21

both in terms of identifiable and clear boundaries, community identities and electoral equality. 21 Saltley 1 8,780 8,780 +9% No amendment proposed. See comments on Alum Rock Ward. 22 Shard End 1 8,663 8,663 +8% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal reflects the geographic constraints imposed by the city boundary and by the proposals for Bromford & Hodge Hill Ward and Glebe Farm & Tile Cross Ward, whilst ensuring a balance of the statutory criteria. 23 Sheldon 2 15,637 7,818 -3% No amendment proposed. The proposal by the Boundary Commission picks up much of our earlier submission and reflects the balance of the statutory criteria. It is wholly contained within the existing Sheldon Ward. 24 Small Heath 2 14,773 7,387 -8% No amendment proposed. The proposal by the Boundary Commission reflects our earlier submission but with a more appropriate boundary with Ward that proceeds along the rear of the houses in Green Lane rather than along the middle of the road, with the properties affected located in Bordesley Green Ward. 25 2 16,136 8,068 0% No amendment proposed. Our initial proposal for this ward did not extend as far westwards as the ward proposed by the Boundary Commission. By now agreeing with the Boundary Commission on the boundaries for Sparkbrook Ward, the much contested Boundary Commission proposal for Balsall Heath & Cannon Hill Ward and Moseley Ward can be resolved to align ward boundaries in these areas as far as possible with proposals being put forward by community organisations. 26 Stechford East 1 7,786 7,786 -3% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed Our own earlier proposal for some wards in this part of the city were Yardley North) somewhat different to those proposed by the Boundary Commission, both in terms of the boundaries chosen and the designation of one– and two– member wards. The proposed one–member Stechford East Ward, which we can now agree, does have clear and identifiable boundaries, Page 8 of 21

but the name given to the ward does not reflect the historic Parish of Yardley, within which there is St Edburgha’s Church, Old Yardley Park and Old Yardley Conservation Area, which provide a community identity that suggests the use of Yardley in the name. Therefore, we have renamed the ward as Yardley North. 27 Stechford 1 8,075 8,075 0% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. West The adoption of a Stechford East/Yardley North Ward leads to the (Renamed adoption of a one-member Stechford West/Stechford Ward as the Stechford) boundaries are clear and identifiable and provide a good level of electoral equality as a one-member ward. In community terms, the area is known as Stechford. 28 Ward End 1 8,640 8,640 +7% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s comments reflect our own view on the appropriateness of the boundaries proposed and the community identity of the area as Ward End.

29 Yardley East 1 7,792 7,792 -3% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The evidence presented by the Boundary Commission supports a one- ) member Yardley East/South Yardley Ward that has clear and identifiable boundaries and with a community identity that further supports the proposal. 30 Yardley West 2 17,459 8,729 +1% Significant amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The Boundary Commission have proposed a one-member Yardley West Acocks Green) Ward and a one-member Yardley East Ward alongside, with a two- member Acocks Green Ward to the south, presumably in responding to local requests that there should not be divisions in the relationship between “the Village” and its surrounding area.

However, in the way that this has been done, the Boundary Commission has isolated from Acocks Geen the area from the Grand Union Canal to the north, the railway to the south and Stockfield Road to the west. The residents of this “Stockfield area” believe that they are part of the Acocks Green community. It is also an area where unusually a railway is not a barrier and where, moreover, Yardley Road links the Page 9 of 21

Stockfield area past Acocks Green Station directly into the Village.

It is not possible to incorporate the Stockfield area into the Acocks Green Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission without exceeding the maximum permitted electoral size for a two-member ward. Neither is it possible to ‘swop’ the Stockfield area with, say, the Yarnfield Estate because of its links with the Village. A different solution is required.

A two-member Acocks Green Ward is suggested by us, comprising the Yardley West Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission and that part of the Acocks Green Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission north of Olton Boulevard East, together with a small part of the Boundary Commission’s Tyseley Ward, so incorporating the Stockfield area into Acocks Green. This fulfils the statutory criteria as there is clear community identity, clear and identifiable boundaries and electoral equality.

The area to the south of this new Acocks Green Ward restores a former Fox Hollies Ward to the city council. (See later comments.)

NORTH OF CITY CENTRE

31 Castle Vale 1 7,408 7,408 8% No amendment proposed. The proposed Castle Vale Ward reflects both the identifiable community and clear boundaries of our original submission. 32 1 8,309 8,309 +3% No amendment proposed. The proposed Erdington Ward reflects our own view on the appropriateness of the boundaries suggested for this ward, including the Boundary Commission amendment to place all of Woodcote Road in the neighbouring Ward.

The proposed one-member Erdington Ward reflects the historic core of Page 10 of 21

Erdington, taking in the High Street, fire station and leisure centre, St Barnabus Church and Church of England Primary School. The northern boundary of Chester Road is the historic boundary with the former Royal Borough of Sutton Coldfield, with the residents to the immediate north of Chester Road identifying with Wylde Green, Sutton Coldfield or Pype Hayes Park.

The Erdington Ward boundary to Short Heath Ward is the railway with no pedestrian or vehicle crossings between Station Road and Chester Road, giving a separate identity to the Short Heath Ward. 33 2 15,456 7,728 -4% No amendment proposed. The proposed Kingstanding Ward, including the minor amendment by the Boundary Commission placing Gailey Croft and the Century Industrial Estate in the neighbouring Ward, reflects our own view on the appropriateness of the boundaries suggested for this ward.

The inclusion of the Bandywood Estate from the present Oscott Ward restores an association with the Kingstanding area that restores a community identity across the northern part of the new Kingstanding Ward. 34 Oscott 2 15,629 7,815 -3% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal for a two-member ward reflects our own submission for Oscott Ward as the proposal uses clear and identifiable boundaries and maintains the community identities of the area. Furthermore, the reduction in electorate size to produce a two- member ward results both in a good level of electoral equality for Oscott Ward and the opportunity to realise a similarly acceptable proposal for Kingstanding Ward. This result cannot be realised by transfer of any other part of the present Oscott Ward to the new Kingstanding Ward. Transforming the Bandywood Estate to Kingstanding Ward releases the part of the present Osott Ward which least identifies with Oscott. 35 Perry Beeches 1 7,621 7,621 -5% No amendment proposed. The proposed Perry Beeches Ward reflects our original submission, provides clear and identifiable boundaries and a balance with other Page 11 of 21

statutory criteria.

36 Perry Common 1 8,169 8,169 +1% No amendment proposed. The proposed Perry Common Ward reflects our original submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria. The three communities of New Oscott, Perry Common and Wyrley Birch come together in reflection of the former parish of Perry Common. 37 Perry Hall 1 7,957 7,957 -1% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal for Perry Hall Ward reflects our own submission for this ward, with clear and identifiable boundaries and a balance with other statutory criteria. 38 Pype Hayes 1 7,674 7,674 -5% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposed Pype Hayes Ward reflects our own submission for a ward centred on Pype Hayes Park, with the whole of Woodcote Road in the ward. It provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and brings together the communities of Pype Hayes and Pitts Farm. 39 Short Heath 1 8,112 8,112 +1% No amendment proposed. The proposed Short Heath Ward reflects our original submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and brings together the communities of Court Farm and Short Heath centred on Short Heath Park. 40 Stockland 2 14,725 7,363 -9% No amendment proposed. Green The proposed Ward reflects our original submission with a ward centred on the ‘Green’. As commented on by the Boundary Commission, there is a good reflection of community identity but only a reasonable level of electoral equality. A better electoral equality is only possible by a change to the boundary with the neighbouring Tyburn Ward but such a change would undermine the strength of community ties in the relevant parts of these two wards. 41 Tyburn 1 8,350 8,350 +4% No amendment proposed. The proposed Tyburn Ward reflects our original submission, provides clear and identifiable boundaries and community identity. Page 12 of 21

SOUTH-EAST OF CITY CENTRE

This is the area of the city identified in the introduction on page 2 within which there is the most disagreement with the Boundary Commission recommendations and where community comment has been most voluble.

It is possible to resolve many of these disagreements without impact on surrounding areas of the city, which is why our approach has been to ‘lock down’ as many as possible of the Boundary Commission recommendations beyond the south-east of the city.

A start to the process is best made by resolving some of the conflict around the Boundary Commission proposal for a Balsall Heath & Cannon Hill Ward, their moving onto the Hall Green and Acocks Green areas. However, the presentation of our conclusions follows the ward order presented in the Boundary Commission report, so immediately addresses the strong community arguments for the distinct community identities of Hall Green, Fox Hollies and Acocks Green

42 Acocks Green 1 8,333 8,333 +3% Significant amendment proposed, together with change to name of (Renamed Fox ward. Hollies) Our earlier comments on Yardley West / Acocks Green Ward deal with the northern part of the Boundary Commission’s proposed Acocks Green Ward.

The remainder becomes part of a one-member Fox Hollies Ward that meets the statutory criteria on community identity, with clear and identifiable boundaries and electoral equality, by adopting a southern boundary that runs from York Road north of Lulworth Road, south of the playing fields off Oakhurst Road to Gospel Farm Road and the city boundary by proceeding north of Broom Hall Crescent to Lakey Lane. The area below this southern boundary regards itself as part of the Hall Green community and is incorporated into a proposed Hall Green East Ward.

Our proposed Fox Hollies Ward reinstates the historic name for the area. It has within it Fox Hollies Park and Fox Hollies Leisure Centre, and the

Page 13 of 21

area has a thriving Fox Hollies Forum run by the Fox Hollies Community Association. 43 Balsall Heath 1 8,262 8,262 +3% Significant amendment proposed, together with change to name of & Cannon Hill ward. (Renamed A one-member ward that meets the statutory criteria can be established Balsall Heath) across an area from Bristol Road in the west to Moseley Road in the east. As referred to in our comments on the proposed Edgbaston Ward, the cricket ground would be within this ward, correctly, as the issues and problems arising from the Ground impact on the Balsall Heath community. Clear and identifiable boundaries are used that provide a good level of electoral equality and enable a solution to the problems of the neighbouring area to the south i.e. Moseley.

If the extent of the Balsall Heath community is to be recognised further, this could be done by extension into the proposed Sparkbrook Ward (within the envelope of that ward), with the consequence that the proposed Balsall Heath Ward would become a two-member ward and Sparkbrook Ward would become a one-member ward. 44 Billesley 2 14,736 7,368 -9% No amendment proposed. The proposed Billesley Ward reflects our earlier submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria, notwithstanding the problem of accommodating the geographical barriers of the Chinn Brook and . 45 1 8,784 8,784 +9% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission proposal for this ward reflects our earlier submission, with a significant amendment by the Boundary Commission to the north of the ward that assists delivery of electoral equality requirements for Brandwood Ward and the neighbouring Kings Heath Ward. 46 Hall Green 2 16,745 8,372 +4% Significant amendment proposed, together with change to name of North ward (Renamed Hall The proposed Boundary Commission boundaries in the Hall Green area Green West) have not received public support. The problems can be overcome by first identifying the core Hall Green community and then extending the Page 14 of 21

boundary envelope, northwards and south to the city boundary to give electoral equality for a notional three-member ward. Then this area can be divided into a two-member and a one-member ward.

Our proposed two-member Hall Green West Ward is bounded on the west by the River Cole, the city boundary to the south and Stratford Road and the railway to the east, together with the area between Formans Road and Shaftmoor Lane from the Tyseley Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission. This brings within a Hall Green Ward those totemic features of Hall Green such as Sarehole Mill, Hall Green Parade and South & City College (formerly Hall Green Technical College).

The communities within this new ward strongly identify with Hall Green. 47 Hall Green 1 8,484 8,484 +5% Significant amendment proposed, together with change to name of South ward. (Renamed Hall Our proposed one-member Hall Green East Ward very strongly Green East) identifies with Hall Green, and follows clear and identifiable boundaries. 48 Highters Heath 1 8,503 8,503 6% No amendment proposed. (with removal The proposed Highters Heath Ward reflects our original submission, of the providing a community identity and clear and identifiable boundaries. apostrophe previously removed by statutory instrument) 49 Kings Heath 1 8,200 8,200 +2% Minor amendment proposed. We agree with the establishment of a Kings heath Ward and broadly with boundaries proposed by the Boundary Commission. Our proposal for the new Moseley Ward impacts on the Kings Heath Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission, but in a minor way. In the north of the proposed ward, the area to the east of the High Street associates with Kings Heath Junior & Infant School and the shopping facilities on the High Street itself.

Page 15 of 21

50 Monyhull 1 8,199 8,199 +2% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The Boundary Commission’s proposed Monyhull Ward has a community Druids Heath identity that can be improved by the addition of Druids Heath to the and Monyhull) name of the ward, as the greatest part of the electorate in the ward lives in the Druids Heath Estate. Otherwise, clear and identifiable boundaries are used as reflected in our own earlier submission improved by not dividing Monyhull Hall Road between two wards. 51 Moseley 2 15,340 7,670 -5% Significant amendment proposed. Many of the changes we are proposing have been referred to in our comments on the Boundary Commission’s proposals for Balsall Heath & Cannon Hill ward. The Boundary Commission proposed Moseley Ward divides the community of Moseley in significant ways and our new proposal for Moseley Ward puts together a ward that respects community identity and provides clear and identifiable boundaries. Community identity and electoral equality is improved by including an area north of Dads Lane, within the Boundary Commission’s Stirchley Ward, Greenend Road and Elmfield Road together with Eastlands, Southlands, Westlands and Northlands Roads and Moseley Golf Course from the proposed Kings Heath Ward, and an area west of and including Windemere Road and a southern section of Wake Green Road from the Boundary Commission’s proposed Sparkhill Ward South. 52 Sparkhill North 1 8,625 8,625 +7% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The ward proposed by the Boundary Commission is a better solution to Sparkhill) the requirements of the statutory criteria than in our original submission. 53 Sparkhill South 1 8,010 8,010 0% Minor amendment proposed, together with change to name of (Renamed ward. Springfield) The Sparkhill South Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission does provide a better balance of the statutory criteria than the ward proposed in our original submission. As stated in our comments on Moseley Ward, a small area to the east of Yardley Wood road is relocated into a new Moseley Ward to improve the electoral equality of both that ward and the Sparkhill South/Springfield Ward. 54 Tyseley 2 16,745 8,372 Significant amendment proposed, by re-distribution of ward amongst other proposed wards. Page 16 of 21

The final piece in the “jigsaw” for the south-west of the city is the Boundary Commission proposed Tyseley Ward. A small part of this ward becomes part of our proposed new Acocks Green Ward (see Yardley West above), so that area off and including Olton Boulevard East and Spring Road are reunited with the Yarnfield Estate in Acocks Green. The remainder of the Tyseley Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission is incorporated into a new Hall Green West Ward (see earlier comments).

SOUTH –WEST OF CITY CENTRE

55 Allens Croft 1 8,018 8,018 0% No amendment proposed. The proposed Allens Cross Ward reflects our original submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria. 56 2 16,662 8,331 3% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal for Bartley Green Ward reflects our original submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria. 57 Bournbrook & 2 16,600 8,300 3% No amendment proposed. Selly Park The Boundary Commission have proposed a two-member Ward that provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and reflects our own original submission. The proposed ward is almost entirely a residential area but with a mix of different tenures and types of housing that would mitigate against two one-member wards, particularly since there is a large proportion of students that would give a one-member ward a very transient electoral base that would undermine effective and convenient local government for such a ward. 58 & 2 15,971 7,985 -1% No amendment proposed. Cotteridge The Bournville & Cotteridge Ward proposed by the Boundary Commission reflects our original submission, but with two minor boundary changes, in the north and south of the ward, to improve the Page 17 of 21

balance of statutory criteria. The amendment on the north of the ward ensures that the new housing development around Raddlebarn Road remains within one ward. 59 Frankley 1 8,670 8,670 +8% No amendment proposed. The proposed Frankley Ward reflects our original submission and provides a good balance between the statutory criteria, including in its entirety the Frankley Parish. 60 Hawkesley 1 8,070 8,070 0% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The Hawkesley Ward proposed by the Boundary commission differs from our own original submission by using polling district boundaries South) either side of Redditch Road. The use of Redditch Road would provide a more identifiable boundary but would not significantly improve electoral equality between Hawkesley Ward and the proposed Kings Norton Ward. 61 Kings Norton 1 8,150 8,150 1% No amendment proposed other than name of ward. South (with The proposed Kings Norton Ward reflects our original proposals other removal of than in respect to its southern boundary. See our comments on apostrophe Hawkesley/Kings Norton South Ward. previously removed by statutory instrument) 62 Northfield East 1 7,725 7,725 -4% No amendments proposed, other than name of ward. (Renamed The Boundary Commission proposal reflects our own original West Heath submission but for it being a one-member ward rather than taken North) together with West Heath Ward to produce a two-member Ward. Whilst there is an identifiable boundary between these two wards, there is not such a clear community division. Renaming the proposed ward as West Heath North would reflect the inclusion of West Heath Park as the eastern boundary of the ward. 63 Northfield 1 8,248 8,248 +2% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. West The proposal by the Boundary commission for a one-member Northfield (Renamed West Ward reflects our original submission. We have suggested that Northfield) the ward is renamed as Northfield to reflect our comments on Northfield Page 18 of 21

East/West Heath North Ward. 64 Quinton 2 15,751 7,875 -2% No amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal for Quinton Ward reflects our original submission and provides good balance of the statutory criteria. 65 & 1 8,180 8,180 +2% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. Rubery The proposal of the Boundary Commission reflects our original (Renamed submission and has clear and identifiable boundaries, with a good & balance between the statutory criteria. A change of name is proposed RuberyRednal) as local residents have expressed concern at the loss of the Longbridge name. ‘RuberyRednal’ has also become an established name, so it is appropriate to bring all three locations together in the name of the ward. 66 Stirchley 1 7,966 7,966 -1% Minor amendment proposed. The Boundary Commission’s proposal reflects our original submission and provides a good balance of the statutory criteria, but we have proposed that the area north of Dads Lane is incorporated in Moseley Ward to reflect community identity. 67 2 17,214 8,607 +7% No amendment proposed. The proposed Weoley Ward reflects our original submission other than some minor changes in the north and south of the ward. Both these changes introduce more appropriate, identifiable boundaries. 68 West Heath 1 7,700 7,700 -4% No amendment proposed, other than name of ward. See our comments on Northfield East/West Heath North Ward.

SUTTON COLDFIELD

69 Sutton 1 8,807 8,807 +9% No amendment proposed . Boldmere Whilst the proposed Sutton Boldmere Ward differs from our own submission, in the proposed ward there is an identifiable community either side of the Boldmere Road and bounded in the terms described by the Boundary Commission.

Page 19 of 21

However, we are aware of and support the validity of community views from both the proposed Sutton Boldmere and Sutton Parkside Wards that seek to establish a two-member ward for this area south of Sutton Park, a proposal that reflects our original submission and produces a better level of electoral equality. 70 Sutton 1 8,129 8,129 +1% Minor amendment proposed. Four Oaks We agree with the ward proposed by the Boundary Commission as it includes Four Oaks Park and the Four Oaks Estate that give the ward community identity. However, a better southern boundary to the proposed Sutton Parkside and Sutton Boldmere Wards would be the present Ward boundary so that the play and other facilities on the boundary are within these two wards. The nearest residents are over two miles to the north, so there is no change introduced to electoral numbers. 71 Sutton 1 8,286 8,286 +3% No amendment proposed. Maney The proposed ward builds around Sutton Coldfield Town Centre and the roads off Maney Hill Road which we can support as it reflects a balance between the statutory criteria. 72 Sutton 1 8,384 8,384 +4% No amendment proposed. Mere Green We support the proposal for this ward as it is based on the identifiable community of Mere Green. 73 Sutton 1 8,069 8,069 0% Minor amendment proposed. Parkside The proposed ward combines the two communities of Banners Gate and New Oscott bordered by Sutton Park to the north. We support this proposal by the Boundary Commission, subject to a minor edit to the northern ward boumndary, where no electors are involved. (Also see the community comments on support for a ward joined with Sutton Boldmere) 74 Sutton 1 8,649 8,649 +7% No amendment proposed. Reddicap As this ward comprises the identifiable communities of Falcon Lodge and Reddicap Heath within good and identifiable boundaries, we support the proposal. 75 Sutton 1 8,638 8,638 +7% No amendment proposed. Roughley The proposed ward reflects the identifiable community built around the Page 20 of 21

site of the former farm and meets the statutory criteria. 76 Sutton 2 16,891 8,445 +5% No amendment proposed. Walmley & The proposed ward reflects our initial submission and provides a good Minworth balance between the statutory criteria. 77 Sutton 1 7,911 7,911 -2% No amendment proposed. Wylde Green The proposed ward is centred on the Wylde Green shopping centre and the Birmingham Road and reflects community identity and with clear and identifiable boundaries.

Page 21 of 21

Sutton Mere Green Ward

Sutton Roughley Ward

Sutton Four Oaks Ward

Sutton Maney Ward Sutton Reddicap Ward

Sutton Parkside Ward

Kingstanding Ward Sutton Boldmere Ward

Oscott Ward Sutton Walmley & Minworth Ward Perry Common Ward

Perry Hall Ward

Erdington Ward Pype Hayes Ward

Handsworth Wood Ward Stockland Green Ward Castle Vale Ward

Tyburn Ward

Birchfield Ward Aston Ward Holyhead Ward Handsworth Ward

Lozells Ward Bromford & Hodge Hill Ward Ward End Ward

Nechells Ward Shard End Ward Winson Green Ward Newtown Ward Saltley WardAlum Rock Ward

Glebe Farm & Tile Cross Ward Summerfield Ward

Ladywood Ward Heartlands Ward Stechford East Ward Bordesley & Highgate Ward Garrett's Green Ward Bordesley Green Ward

Small Heath Ward

Sheldon Ward Harborne Ward Edgbaston Ward Sparkbrook Ward Quinton Ward Yardley West Ward

Balsall Heath & Cannon Hill Ward Sparkhill North Ward

Moseley Ward Acocks Green Ward

Bournbrook & Selly Park Ward Sparkhill South Ward

Weoley Ward King's Heath Ward Bartley Green Ward

Hall Green North Ward Stirchley Ward Bournville & Cotteridge Ward

Brandwood Ward Billesley Ward Hall Green South Ward Allens Cross Ward

Monyhull Ward Highter's Heath Ward Northfield West Ward King's Norton Ward Frankley Ward Northfield East Ward

Hawkesley Ward

West Heath Ward Rednal & Rubery Ward

N

W E

Date:14/1/2016 S

Scale 1: