Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Just pack it in changing things and have a councillor ratio to residents like they have a teacher to children ratio in nursery and schools. Obviously a bigger ward should have more councillors. Your just trying to save money again by f**king things up even more. You havn't even given people the option to post anonymously. That is how much you value the people. *Claps*

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We don't need 60 Councillors - 30 is more than enough.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13243 1/1 Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

text:

I live in but have to vote for the ward. It would be nice to vote for where I actually live.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 7/2/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The areas should correlate to other services for example those that health use or gmp

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13256 1/1 7/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name: Member of the public

Comment text:

Born and bred in Salford (1965) and having lived all my life in Salford and Broughton : Higher Broughton (13 yrs), Lower Broughton (40 yrs), I strongly believe that Broughton Ward should remain intact, serving both the communities of Higher and Lower Broughton. I like living in Broughton Ward. I feel it would be detrimental to Lower Broughton residents if it was placed in another Ward, e.g. because of new developments. Lower Broughton is best served within a combined Broughton Ward consisting of Higher and Lower Broughton.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13285 1/1 Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As far as I am concerned Walkden and has and never will be part of Salford.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name: None

Comment text:

Good Afternoon . Perhaps Irlam chould include all the properties in Barton and Winton on the west side of the M60 . Cadishead realistically could only in addition include and perhaps Glazebrook . However these are currently in and therefore . Although we have close links with Hollins Green , they may not want to become part of Salford . Has anyone taken into account , the very large number of new homes that Peel are wanting to build in Irlam ? If they get their way , one development alone is for 1400 new houses and would increase the population by possibly 3,000 plus . We could end up with the largest land area wards in Irlam and Cadishead but not really increasing the size of the population . However also included is , AJ Bell stadium and City Airport .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Salford District

Personal Details:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Irlam and Cadishead wards already reflect communities defined by geographic and historical boundaries. There is also likely to be an increase in population over the next 10 - 20 years as new housing within the wards is developed. To extend further the boundaries of either ward eastwards would make no sense as there is a large industrial and open space at the eastern edge where there are very few residents who currently regard themselves as rather than Irlam. As the wards are bounded on the southern side by the Ship Canal and to the west by the River Glaze/Warrington BC and to the north by the Moss and woodlands, the only way to increase the size of the wards would be to impose arbitrary changes eastwards - this makes no sense adminstratively.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Taylor, Laura

From: Sent: 12 July 2018 13:29 To: reviews Subject: Boundary review for Salford City Cun cil: Irlam & Cadishead

I would like to make a representation about this review. I have been reading some of the paperwork which I think is very complex but it would appear that you have missed a very important point. Irlam & Cadishead is a linear district separated from the rest of Salford by a mile of greenspace and has its own unique identity. Until 1974 it was an Urban District Council funded to a large extent by a vibrant steelworks. By starting from a point of view that there must be 60 Councillors and 20 wards, 3 per ward, fails to recognise the considerable reduction that has taken recently in the services over which Councillors have some control and the amount of money that the Council spends. Current plans, for Irlam ward, seem to show extending the boundary to the M60 motorway to the west which will bring in a sizeable group of people who have no connection to Irlam whatsoever and may be quite resistant to such a change. My suggestion would be to limit the number of Councillors for both Irlam & Cadishead to 2 per ward, keep the integrity of the district and allocate the other Councillors to other wards who possibly need more representatives.

Further to the above I am not sure how aware local people are of these changes and therefore how many representations you may have received. I hope you will give my thoughts some consideration before making these changes which could lead to further erosion in the interest people take in local politic.

1

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Cadishead should only go from the the bridge over the River Glaze near Marge & Steel Roundabout to as far as Excalibur Way. Anything the far side of Irlam Railway line is Irlam.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We have lived on the Crossfield Estate for fifty years and our children have gone to Irlam schools. We shop in Irlam, socialise in Irlam, go to church in Irlam and we have both worked in Irlam and the boundary is within Irlam but we have not got an Irlam post code. I believe that the newly built garage across from the estate has an Irlam postcode.We consider ourselves as living in Irlam as we are nearer here than but it can be confusing when trying to explain that our postal address is Eccles even though that is not where we live. If we order shopping on line from it is delivered from Walkden even though we shop at Irlam Tesco which is just up the road from our house!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am very pleased with there boundaries that we have now. I live in Irlam and it feels a little bit unfair that my area is put together with Cadishead with wich the people from Irlam have nothing to do with. In old times most of the workplaces were there and the inhabitants of Irlam used to go there daily but not anymore for some tens of years. But this is still much better for people from Salford than what the conservatives have assumed we should have. has nothing to do with Salford. Salford is a very, very old city and it is not at all good idea to be put together with Manchester and its problems. We have started really to thrive and we truly do not need their ideas of taking everything away from us, like our Media City. It is in Salford as is the where I used to live previously. Salford is its own well doing city and does not need any dividing by the conservatives to get them more voters. Bad, bad idea. We will keep all as it is. When the areas are this size our MPs have better opportunities to sort everything out in this end also and not only in the Parlament. Keep the borders as they are.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Reduce or increase the ward councillors as appropriate. There is no need for 3 councillors in a safe such as mine with only 9000 residents. If you make boundary changes the areas will loose their identities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text: suggest that the irlam ward start from the railway bridge to give back most of the voters who used to be in it but were moved to cadishead.This is really the natural barrier between irlam and cadishead

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Change nothing.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Irlam area I cannot understand your forecast is only plus 441 when you have a planning application for up to 1500

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14192 1/1 8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The runs through Eccles Town Centre. One side of this road is in Barton Ward, one side in Eccles Ward. This is confusing for everyone. I think both sides should be in Eccles Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14270 1/1 8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wonder if there is any merit in dividing and having a separate ward called Salford Quays in view of the amount of residential development that is taking place in this area? The line of the A5063 might be an appropriate boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14311 1/1 8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name: Irlam & Cadishead Branch Labour Party

Comment text:

If Cadishead Ward boundary is moved further east to take up more of Irlam Ward then the new ward should be named Cadishead and Lower Irlam Ward. So if to place more people in Irlam Ward the border with Barton Ward is moved east, then the new ward could be named Higher Irlam and Barton West Ward

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14352 1/1

8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14386 2/2

8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name: Sovereign Point Residents Assocation

Comment text:

Hi, I am a resident on Salford Quays, and feel that having a separate ward from Ordsall would be a benefit for residents here. I am a member of a local residents association and it frequently is apparent that our issues and objectives differ significantly from those that are presented at the Ordsall ward meetings and forums. Such as, we have a running negotiation with the land owner of the Quays, Peel Holdings, and the quality of management of the waterways running into the quays. Parking and visitor management of events at MediaCity and have a much higher impact to the smaller community on the Quays. With the significant amount of development occurring on the West side of Road, and the building of the new tram network it seems like the area warrants it's own say in the local community and government decisions. Thanks,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14442 1/1 8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We believe that Salford Quays should be a ward in itself. There are currently new buildings being constructed which will add 1800 apartments to the existing development. A further 1000 properties are being planned within the Quays in addition to phase 2 development of media city. This is also expected to contain more apartments. All of these developments could add between 3000 and 5000 people to the population of Salford Quays.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14467 1/1 8/20/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14277 1/1

Taylor, Laura

From: Sent: 22 August 2018 13:42 To: reviews Subject: I support the PROPOSES NEW ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

I support the SALFORD CITY COUNCIL PROPOSES NEW ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES.

Especially with the fast growth development of Salford Quays, causing need for dedicated local representation to ensure services are appropriate to the needs of the many incoming residents.

The new Quays ward is to encompass MediaCityUK and the new apartment blocks along Irwell Riverside. The projection and fast growth of this location necessitates the improvement by supporting the new electoral boundaries.

1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Comment text:

The Ordsall ward is already too large and due to at least double in size. It should be split in two, with some outlying areas potentially joining other wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14494 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why is Boothstown no longer on the map for Salford???

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14500 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My vote would be to have Irlam & Cadishead as 1 ward and put the extra ward in Eccles as that is a bigger area. Irlam & Cadishead is more remote and has very different issues than any areas of Eccles.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14505 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am disgusted to here you are trying to add more boundaries to Salford. Where is the money coming from for these further Councillor's suppose the Tax Payer so Council Tax will be going up again!!!!! Not to say how much this ridiculous exercise is costing at the moment!!! There are enough councillor's within Salford and I am not happy for the boundaries to be increased! This council needs to stop wasting money and sort Salford out its a disgrace!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14506 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed ward changes are ridiculous. Irlam should not be split between Cadishead and Eccles - two separate areas. I can almost understand joining Irlam and Cadishead but am unable to see any benefit to the electorate. The ONLY benefit is to the desperate authority and government trying to cling onto power by splitting wards to dilute the vote. As a lifelong resident of Irlam I vehemently oppose these changes. This page is exceptionally difficult to use which I believe is intentional to dissuade people from opposing the changes.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14507 1/1

8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

text:

Why is this review being done now and not waiting for the outcomes of the Spatial Framework and Salford Local Plan? Those plans are set to re-designate huge swathes of land in salford for housing which will have an obvious impact on the potential available electorate. These boundary reviews must be halted until those plans have been published and the full impact of them can be integrated into an updated boundary review

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14512 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

and Community Association

Comment text:

Ref: The Irlam and Cadihead Ward Changes:- The main feature is moving the Boundary into Higher Irlam - to try and balance the population between the two wards. The extension of the Irlam boundary to the M60 in the Stadium area will not include any housing areas currently. IE: It's as broad as it's long. If the excercise must be completed; so be it. The Changes to the City Centre Ward Boundaries are of far more consequence and; on the face of it; far more neccessary in the current poulation situation.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14514 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree with Salford Council having more boundaries in fact you should be widerning the boundaries to cut down on councillors which is a drain on resource then this money could go to cleaning my up Salford as it’s a bloody disgrace I had to contact the Lord Mayor last year to sort the weeds in the centre reservation on the East Lancs Road which is the same again today! How much is it costing for the council to exercise this latest exercise again costing the tax payer which could go into sorting Salford out!! This council is a sham!! I am totally against this!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14522 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed ward changes will do untold damage to the districts of Cadishead and Irlam. If anything the ward boundary for Irlam should be pulled back to Crosfield Estate..Cadishead Ward boundary should be pulled back to the traditional border with Irlam.Making each ward larger also creates conflicts of interests with outlying areas when it comes to local issues.Its awkward enough that Cadishead councillors have to deal with issues in Irlam but the thought of Irlam councillors having to represent the residents of Brookhouse and Peel Green is quite frankly ludicrous.. I suspect there are ulterior motives lurking in the background to push this ridiculous motion through Divide and rule springs to mind rather than local councillors actually representing Cadishead & Irlam.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14524 1/1

8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

i am asking that the proposal is placed on hold until the outcome of the GMSF has been decided.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14556 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe the boundaries should remain the same, at the very least no changes should be made until the greater Manchester spatial framework is finalised. I can see no valid reason for these boundary changes to take place prior to and only after GMSF publication and finalisation with transparency of reasoning to constituents and local councillors actually canvassing the opinions of the communities they are elected to serve.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14589 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Comment text:

Leave the boundaries as they are, there is no reason too move them apart from political gain, Why can you put this on hold until we know the outcome of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14590 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Comment text:

Changing the Ward Boundaries for Irlam and Cadishead Wards is simply WRONG! Irlam and Cadishead are geographically a stand alone town. One side the , one side the Moss and each end Duel Carriageways. It has always been a part isolated linear Town. To include parts of Winton in the Irlam Ward just to make up the numbers is simply daft. Has the proposed development of several thousand new builds in the area been taken into the account? This would tip the balance the wrong way more than any boundary change. Leave it as it is. Why not cut the number of Councillors in Irlam and Cadishead to TWO in each Ward instead.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14602 1/1 8/24/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name: Westwood and Alder Park Tenants and Residents Association

Comment text:

The Westwood Park Tenants and Resident Association is a vibrant and effective organisation. Winton ward is within the required percentage of electors, has a significant local history and has an active and cohesive community. We would oppose any changes to our ward where it would impact on our community which is one of the most deprived in the country. Westwood and Alder Park Tenants and Residents Association

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14618 1/1 Submission to the Boundaries Commission on behalf of the Langland & Boscombe Community Group concerning the Salford Electoral Review

Dear sir

I represent the community group known as Langland & Boscombe Community Group, a small group based in , Salford. We are a group of neighbours who, using the power of social media, get together to make our area a better place to live.

We are only 300 metres from the perceived centre of Barton, the junction of Barton Road, Barton Lane, and adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal (formerly the ); as such we identify strongly with the local area, overlooking the canal and the famous and historically significant .

Our community activities over the past few years have included

• the landscaping and maintenance of the copse between the two roads, providing an open green space for local people to enjoy and a safe place for children to play. • Redressing the footpath on the nature walk by the Ship Canal • Cultivation of key areas & planting of shrubs and flowers for the enjoyment of all.

This community activity now being extended to areas up to Barton pocket park by others form outside our area who are inspired by the work we have done and who now work with us to spread this community spirit throughout the area.

We are aware that Salford City Council have made proposals for Warding arrangements and this place the road in the proposed Higher Irlam and Peel Green Ward. The entrance to Langland Drive is right on the boundary of this proposed ward and the proposed Barton and Winton Ward.

As a community, we have a strong affinity with Barton, far greater to that of Peel Green and Irlam, and we strongly object to the proposal by Salford council to redefine the boundary of the Barton Ward in this way, and effectively cut us off from our local community.

We would ask that when defining the new boundaries, the commission ensure that our community, that of Langland Drive and Boscombe Avenue, remains part of the Barton ward.

Submission to the Boundaries Commission on behalf of the Langland & Boscombe Community Group concerning the Salford Electoral Review

While we understand the need for boundary reviews, it seems that Salford council, in their proposal, have focussed entirely on levelling out electoral numbers at the expense of the identities and interests of local communities such as ours.

In addition, they have neglected to fix our local boundaries to ensure they “are and will remain easily identifiable, and which will not break local ties”.

This is set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act), detailed in section 3.5 of your Technical Guidance notes as published on your consultation website.

Additionally, we object, most vehemently, to the removal of a significant part of Barton from the Barton ward would ideally wish to see the western boundary of the ward become the M60 motorway up to its junction with the Manchester Ship Canal, the canal itself forming the southern boundary of the ward.

This seems logical, applies common sense, and maintains the strong ties we in the area have with Barton, and Eccles. The M60 is a significant boundary and we all feel much more connected to neighbouring communities to the east and not at all to those to the west of the M60. Indeed, section 4.4 of the Salford City Council submission clearly identifies the M60 as defining “the physical geography of the area”.

Salford City Council go on to state in their submission that, in defining the new Higher Irlam & Peel Green The revised boundaries for this ward include communities within the area of Higher Irlam, one of three villages that have historically made up the area of Irlam, and the neighbouring area of Peel Green. The proposed ward name brings together the two old area names reflected in groups or buildings in the area such as the Higher Irlam Social Club, a long running social club first set up in the 1940s, and Peel Green Cemetery. Whilst the two areas have their own distinct community, they jointly benefit from the area’s green space, transport links, and wider facilities It is not insignificant that all the communities mentioned are west of the M60

Mindful that in this case our proposal will slightly increase the electorate in Barton, with a corresponding reduction to the numbers in the proposed Higher Irlam ward, we would suggest that the increase to the Barton electorate will be insignificant and would not create any imbalance to the equality of representation. Similarly, the reduction of the electorate in Higher Irlam will be more than offset by many proposed new developments, including schemes that would see over 2000 new homes built on the former Boysnope golf course in the next 3 – 5 years.

Also attached is a petition of signatures showing the strength of feeling in our community

Yours incerely

9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

To ensure diversity and inclusivity across all wards Quays should be South Ordsall & Quays - strongly disagree with stand alone Quays Ward

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14628 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Would expect all housing up to Irlam station to come under Irlam Ward, illogical to have Irlam station under Cadishead Ward when there is an Irlam Ward but this could result in Cadishead Ward becoming too small based on objective. Would expect all housing to the east of Fairhills Rd/near Irlam Locks to be added to Irlam Ward, e.g. housing estates entered via Sandywarps/Townsgate Way/ Mona Way Housing between A57 and AJ Bell stadium up to J11 of M60 would be more logical to move from Barton to Irlam, i.e. use M60 as a natural boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14633 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I agree that councillors should represent approximately the same number of residents but would ask that you pay careful attention to the socio-demographic and socio-economic profiles of each of the new wards before settling on new boundaries to ensure that there can be no unintended equality impacts and so that wards, as far as possible, reflect the broader population demographics of the city. There is a risk, for example, that the wealth differential - and therefore the strength of the community voice - between Salford Quays & Ordsall could be exacerbated if boundaries are drawn purely on the basis of volume of residents.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14715 1/1

9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Salford District

Personal Details:

Name:

Comment text:

I’ve lived in Peel Green for 40 years out of 65 years living in Eccles! There are many my age, that would have wished Eccles would never had gone into Salford! But as we learn in life, at that time, we thought wrongly it was a done thing! I remember when the Boundaries Commision attempted to put us with Tyldesley, you would need a tractor to get there! Peel Green needs to remain in the Winton ward of Salford, maybe an option may be to put it in the Barton Ward, both were in the old Borough of Eccles! Whilst it’s important to equal out councillors/ MP’s in regard to resident numbers, it’s really important that Peel Green/ Brook House Estate stays in Winton /Eccles as it has no links with Irlam nor Cadishead! In the past Barton Airport belonged to the Barton Ward! Perhaps the Irlam boundary should end at the start of the Airport! The previous , Ian Stewart changed the road layout out of Irlam entering Peel Green to two lanes and only one lane going back into Irlam which has a detrimental affect on congestion and air quality! When Peel Green and Barton residents would want the two lanes opened the opposite way to relieve congestion. The Golf course that runs along Road, Irlam was closed down and whilst planning consent was not obtained, the owners of the land have a very good track record of over coming any problems where planning consent goes! We expect Peel Holdings will build many homes along Liverpool Road Irlam, going back towards the Liverpool - Manchester Railway Line and with planning consent already given on Port Salford, Irlam, the number of jobs available will rise dramatically alongside secondary businesses locating in Irlam/ Cadishead which could mean people new to the area could wish to live in Irlam/ Cadishead! The old Borough of Eccles is full of history, but it ends at Barton Airport ! The Quays Salford! The Quays needs to be kept in Ordsal! So there’s a balance of needs! Splitting this ward would split the political hold !

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14816 1/1

Salford City Council Conservative Group Submission to local government boundary review: September 2018 As the opposition group on Salford City Council, we are pleased to present our initial submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England review of the electoral arrangements for Salford City Council.

Proposed wards

Ward name 2024 electorate Variance Blackfriars 10460 3.32 Broadoak and Monton 10080 -0.43 Broughton 9610 -5.08 Cadishead and Lower Irlam 10050 -0.73 Clifton and 10000 -1.22 Eccles 10560 4.31 Height and Charlestown 10265 1.39 Higher Irlam and Peel Green 10100 -0.24 and Broughton Park 9610 -5.08 10260 1.34 Ordsall 9980 -1.42 Pendleton and Crescent 10275 1.49 Quays 9890 -2.31 Swinton and Wardley 10125 0.01 Swinton Park 10125 0.01 10710 5.79 and Ellenbrook 10135 0.11 and Seedley 10185 0.6 Winton 10395 2.68 Worsley and Boothstown 9665 -4.53

Total 202480

Appendix 1 contains the above table summary of our ward proposals together with a ward map for each proposed ward, and in this document we will explain and justify our decisions. No boundary submission is perfect. Dividing over 200,000 electors into 20 wards, whilst retaining both community ties and electoral fairness, is a complex and difficult task, which will inevitably involve some compromises. Nonetheless, we believe that our proposal best reflects the three legal factors that the commission uses to draw new boundaries. These are: 1. New wards should leave each councillor representing roughly the same number of voters as other councillors elsewhere in the authority. 2. New wards should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities, and boundaries should be identifiable. Consider transport links, community groups and facilities, natural or physical boundaries, parishes and shared interests. 3. New wards should promote effective and convenient local government. Consider the number of councillors for, the geographic size of, and the links between parts of the ward. Our proposals provide an excellent level of electoral equality. Our proposals have an average (mean) variance from quota of just 2.1%; this compares extremely favourably with the Council's proposals, which have a mean variance of 3.4%. 12 of our wards are within 2% of quota, compared to only five wards in the Council's proposal. Only three wards in our proposals have a variance of 5% or greater, and the greatest variance from quota is our proposed Walkden North ward, which has a variance of +5.79%. In the Council's proposal, six wards have a variance of 5% or greater, and the largest variance (also Walkden North ward) is -7.15%. With regard to wards reflecting community ties and effective local government, we have outlined below our justification and reasoning for each individual ward. We are particularly pleased that our proposal strengthens community ties in a number of our town centres. In our proposals, the town centres of Walkden, Swinton, and Eccles, are each united within a single ward, rather than each split over two wards as is currently the case, and remains the case in the Council’s submission. We have also been able to unite Little Hulton village centre within a single ward, whereas the Council’s proposal splits the Little Hulton area over three wards, rather than two at present. We have also retained the integrity of the villages of Worsley, Roe Green, and Winton, all of which have been unnecessarily split in two in the Council’s proposals. We have paid particular attention to what constitutes a strong and natural boundary. In the east of the city, we are pleased to have been able to draw the wards of Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park without the need to cross the River Irwell. In the west of the city, our arrangements do not cross the strong boundary of the A580 East Road west of the residential area around Swinton Park golf course.

Kersal & Broughton Park ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 9,610, -5.08% variance) Broughton ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 9,610, -5.08% variance) The two current wards of Kersal and Broughton will contain a combined 19,220 electors, as per the projection for the 2024 electorate. We believe that the River Irwell remains a significant natural boundary between Kersal and Broughton and the rest of the city; as 19,220 electors is enough to provide for two wards within a reasonable variance, we discounted the possibility of creating a cross-river ward, which would break community ties without providing for any discernible benefit. Under the existing boundaries, whilst the current Broughton ward would be within a reasonable variance, the current Kersal ward would have a 2024 electorate of only 8,956, which would be a variance of more than 10%. We consider that this would be too high, and therefore we are proposing to make a small amendment to the existing boundary to ensure that both wards are within a reasonable distance of the quota. The City Council submission proposes that a dagger-shaped area bounded by Leicester Road, Devonshire Road, and Great Cheetham Street East, be transferred from Broughton ward to Kersal ward. We feel that there are better options available. We note that:

• Beyond a vague reference to “community connectedness”, the Council submission does not provide any justification for their choice. • Due to the unusual shape of the proposed new boundary, Mandley Park separates the majority of residents in this transferred section from the remainder of their proposed Kersal ward. • The variance of the Council’s proposed Kersal ward is -6.21%. We consider that this is unnecessarily high given the plethora of alternative ways to draw this boundary. Under our proposal, all 20 wards have a variance of under 6%. We think that the community interest would be better served with an alternative boundary. We proposed that the Kersal ward boundary be extended south from Northumberland Street, bounded by Bury New Road and Leicester Road. The new boundary would run along Wellington Street East between Bury New Road and Tully Street, and along Welbeck Grove between Tully Street and Leicester Road. We believe that the homes and businesses in this area are part of the same community as the streets in the existing Kersal ward to the north, and they represent a natural extension of Kersal ward. Existing Kersal ward residents are the primary users of many of the businesses in this transferred area. This proposal also ensures a greater equality of representation. Under our boundary, both wards would contain 9,610 electors, which is 5.08% variance from quota in both counts. It is not possible to provide more equal representation for residents in Broughton and Kersal without crossing the natural boundary of the River Irwell. We would also like to recommend an addition to the name of Kersal ward. We do not believe that “Kersal” alone is an accurate reflection of the make-up of the ward. The majority of electors in the east of the ward would not consider themselves to be part of Kersal. Therefore, we propose that the ward name be changed to “Kersal and Broughton Park”.

Cadishead and Lower Irlam (forecast 2024 electorate - 10,050, -0.73% variance) The forecast 2024 electorate of the current Cadishead ward is well over 10% variance from quota. There are limited options to rectify this given the local geography, with the local authority boundary on three sides of the ward. Irlam and Cadishead is a distinct area with extremely strong community ties, and in an ideal world we would prefer that the area retained two Council wards broadly coterminous with the area of the towns, we acknowledge that the electoral arithmetic now makes this impossible. We therefore propose to make a relatively minor amendment to the existing ward boundary, bringing in some additional electors from the current Irlam ward to bring Cadishead ward towards quota. As the current Cadishead ward already contains substantial parts of what would commonly be considered to be Irlam, including the railway station and the fire station, we do not consider that this would break any existing community ties. The are a number of options for doing this, but having considered a variety of different ward boundaries, we consider that the Council’s proposed ward boundary is as good as any; to the south of Liverpool Road, it follows the natural boundaries of Platts Brook and the old river course, and to the north it reunites the community around School Lane within the same local authority ward. Cutnook Lane provides a clear boundary north of the M62. We also support a proposed ward name of “Cadishead and Lower Irlam”, which better reflects the make-up of the ward.

Higher Irlam and Peel Green (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,100, -0.24% variance) As we noted above, in an ideal world we would prefer that Irlam and Cadishead retained two Council wards broadly coterminous with the area of the towns, but we acknowledge that the electoral arithmetic now makes this impossible. We note that in their 2003 review, the officers from the then boundary committee concluded that “in this part of the city, the M60 motorway does not form a significant barrier and that roads and paths both under and over the motorway link the settlements to the east and west”. We also note that the 18,290 electors west of the M60 and south of the M62 are not enough to form two wards with a reasonable electoral variance. We propose a “Higher Irlam and Peel Green” ward which would include the remainder of the existing Irlam ward, together with four polling districts from the current Barton ward. West of the M60, this would include the homes on either side of Liverpool Road, but not the Brookhouse neighbourhood which would remain in a largely unchanged Winton ward. East of the M60, the ward would be bordered by Liverpool Road to the north, the to the east, and the local authority boundary of the Manchester Ship Canal to the south. We believe that this arrangement best retains community ties in Peel Green whilst providing for electoral equality. To the east, the canal provides for a clear natural boundary for the ward, and there is a clear continuation of the community along Peel Green Road. This in contrast to the Council’s proposed eastern ward boundary for their similarly-named ward, which is completely indistinct and meanders behind back gardens and between homes, unnecessarily splitting the neighbourhood in two. The Council have provided no justification in their submission for choosing such an indistinct ward boundary. In the north, the boundary along Liverpool Road would reflect the existing ward boundary between Winton and Barton wards – this section of Liverpool Road was described as a “strong barrier” in the 2003 review.

Winton ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,395, 2.68% variance) The existing Winton ward has a forecast 2024 electorate of 9,261, which is a variance of almost 10%. In order to provide equality of representation whilst retaining continuity and community identity, we propose a broadly unchanged but expanded Winton ward. This new ward would include 100% of the current Winton ward. It would also include the current polling district DG from Barton ward, bordered by Liverpool Road to the south, Milton Street to the east, and the railway line to the north. It would also include a small area of the present Eccles ward, bordered by the railway line to the south, the Lyntown industrial estate to the east, and the M602 to the north. Brookhouse is a distinct neighbourhood, separate from Peel Green. Given that there are too few electors to create two wards entirely to the west of the M60, we propose to retain Brookhouse within the Winton ward. This will retain the community ties within Brookhouse without the need to create an artificial ward boundary in the middle of Peel Green, as discussed in our justification for the Higher Irlam and Peel Green ward. We believe that the areas in the east which we propose to add to Winton ward provide the best balance of community identity, administrative continuity and electoral equality. Milton Street is the existing ward boundary between Barton and Eccles wards, and our proposals therefore provide stability and continuity of representation. Green Lane provides a clear transport corridor through proposed new part of the ward, and in this location, the M602 provides a clear boundary between our proposed Winton ward, and the community in Monton to the north. It is important to note that at the 2003 review, the homes south of the M602 in this area had not been conceived never mind built. These homes have more in common with Patricroft to the south than with the distinct community of Monton to the north; they would look south for local schools, for local amenities, and for local transport links including the railway station at Patricroft and bus links along the A57. We do not agree with the Council’s proposal to split Winton ward in half and create a new “Worsley and Westwood Park” ward. This breaks established community ties in the Winton area. We note that:

• In the Council’s proposal, the area south of Parrin Lane around Napier Road and Montonfields Road is completely orphaned from the remainder of their proposed Winton and Barton ward. At this location, the M602 is an extremely strong barrier and this proposal clearly breaks established community links. • The existing polling district in this area, CB, encompasses both sides of Parrin Lane, and reflects the clear community links between the Napier Road area and Westwood Park to the north, including the local school and the church, which is also the current polling station. • The Council submission makes no attempt to justify pairing the north of Winton with Worsley Village, other than on the grounds of electoral equality. • The local community in the Westwood Park area clearly looks south and east, not north to Worsley. The community links between Westwood Park and Worsley are extremely limited, and between Winton and Broadoak Park and Moorside they are almost non-existent. • Young people in Winton predominantly attend either St Patrick’s RC High School (in Winton ward) or Ellesmere Park High School in Eccles. Very few head north for their schooling. Children in Worsley village will predominantly attend Walkden High School. • This is also reflected by the local 65 bus service, which is the main local community bus service between Eccles and Winton. This terminates at Walker Road before returning south to Eccles. • The local community in the north of Winton ward make heavy use of the community facilities in the south of Winton ward, such as Winton Park and the Children’s Centre, both of which serve the whole community. Cleavley running track, a well-loved community facility, is located south of the M602, but the primary access for the facilities is from the north of the M602 via Blantyre Street. Residents in Westwood Park are much more likely to use Winton library (located just south of the M602) than they would be to travel north to use Worsley village library.

Little Hulton (forecast 2024 electorate: 10260, variance 1.34%) Walkden North (forecast 2024 electorate: 10710, variance 5.79%) Walkden South and Ellenbrook (forecast 2024 electorate: 10135, variance 0.11%) In the north-west of the city, we propose a ward arrangement broadly similar to the boundaries prior to the 2003 review. In the 2003 review, although it was accepted that the A580 constituted a very strong boundary, due to population growth in the Ellenbrook area, it was not mathematically possible to draw three wards north of the A580 and west of the M60 and still remain within a reasonable variance of quota. This resulted in the current compromise of Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward. As the subsequent population growth has been concentrated in the east of the city, it is now possible to draw three wards north of the A580 which better reflect the community ties within these communities. It should also be noted that since the 2003 review, the construction of the Leigh Guided Busway has increased both number of lanes and the traffic flow on the A580 in this location. By returning Ellenbrook to its natural in a ward with parts of southern Walkden, this also allows us to propose a trio of wards which provide a much better level of electoral equality. Our proposed Walkden South and Ellenbrook and Little Hulton wards are both close to quota, compared to the City Council’s proposals which have a variance of -5.13% and -5.18% respectively. Although our Walkden North ward has a variance of 5.79%, this compares favourably with the Council’s proposed Walkden North which has a massive negative variance of -7.15%. We are also concerned that the Council’s proposals would result in three significantly undersized wards grouped together in an area of the city where the population growth is lower.

We propose a broadly unchanged Little Hulton ward, which would include 100% of the electors in the current Little Hulton ward but includes some additional electors in the town centre and removes a small area with no electors in the south of the ward. Our proposed Little Hulton ward has a variance of 1.34%, compared to the Council’s proposed Little Hulton which has a much higher variance of -5.18%. We propose altering the southern boundary to move the former St George’s High School playing fields from Little Hulton to our new Walkden South and Ellenbrook ward. This does not involve any electors. However, the playing fields have recently been sold by the Council for development, and although these homes cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the figures, should the site subsequently be developed, it would be completely cut off from the rest of Little Hulton ward by the railway line. Therefore it makes sense to amend the boundary in this location. We note that the Council’s submission also makes this suggestion. We also propose to amend the boundary between Walkden North and Little Hulton wards, moving a triangular shaped area south of the loopline, north of the A6, and east of Cleggs Lane, from Walkden North to Little Hulton. This area, which includes the former co-operative stores building and Little Hulton police station, is part of Little Hulton town centre and clearly separated from the remainder of Walkden North ward by the loopline (former railway line). Residents in this area consider themselves to be part of Little Hulton town centre, and our view is that where possible, in the interests of both community ties and efficient local government, town centres should be contained with a single ward where possible. We do not support the Council’s proposal to include the area around Harrop Street with Walkden South. This would extend Walkden South ward into the heart of Little Hulton, as far as the former Little Hulton railway station. The Harrop Street area looks west to Little Hulton town centre, and is isolated from the remainder of Walkden South by the St Andrews school campus. This proposal would also split Little Hulton over three separate wards, which is unnecessary and weakens local community ties. We note again that the Council makes no justification beyond electorate equality for choosing this amendment.

We propose a revised Walkden North ward that broadly reflects the current ward, with two amendments. As discussed above, our proposal would unite Little Hulton town centre together in one ward by moving the area south of the loopline and north of the A6 into Little Hulton ward. We also propose to move the ward boundary south to include the whole of Walkden town centre in Walkden North ward. This revised boundary would run south from the A6, west of Athens Drive, as far as the loopline beside Worsley Leisure Centre. It would then follow the loopline east to the railway line, the continues east along the railway line to Cow Lane, where it heads north back to the previous ward boundary. Our proposed Walkden North has a variance from quota of 5.79%, which is the highest variance of any ward in our proposals. However, it compares extremely favourably with the Council’s proposed Walkden North which has a huge negative variance of -7.15%. We don’t believe that that there is a need for any ward in the city to be so significantly undersized. Our revised Walkden North boundary would:

• Unite the whole of Walkden town centre within one ward, improving community ties and allowing for more effective and efficient local government. • Draw together similar areas currently split between Walkden North and Walkden South wards. For example, the town centre restricted parking zone is currently split between the two wards; bringing these two areas together will create a more coherent ward and improve the efficiency of decision-making. A high street is not a natural boundary in a town centre – we consider that wards should be built around town centres where possible, rather than dividing them. • This proposal will bring all the shopping and entertainment areas of Walkden town centre within a single ward. The areas around Memorial Road and Bridgewater Road have more in common with the neighbouring town centre areas to the north than they do with the remainder of Walkden South to the south. • Reunite Christ The King church (north of the A6) with Christ The King school (south of it) within a single ward. • The new southern boundary of the railway line does provide a natural boundary; it also broadly reflects the old parish boundaries, with St Paul’s Walkden to the north and St Mark’s Worsley to the south. The former St Mark’s church hall was located on Edge Fold Road, although it no longer stands on this site. We therefore propose a revised Walkden South ward, including the boundary amendments with the Walkden North and Little Hulton wards described above. This ward would also include the whole of the Ellenbrook neighbourhood; it is largely a return to the Walkden South ward boundaries that existing prior to the 2003 review. We propose a revised name of Walkden South and Ellenbrook ward which better reflects the new boundaries. We feel that this ward best reflects local community ties; it also provides for significantly improved electoral equality compared to the Council’s proposals – a variance of just 0.11% compared to the Council’s proposed Walkden South which has a variance of -5.13%.

• The A580 in this location is a clear natural boundary; it was only discounted in the 2003 review due to mathematical necessity. There is no longer a mathematical need to break this boundary, and of course the boundary has strengthened since 2003 with the construction of an extra lane on the A580 due to the Leigh Guided Busway. • Our proposal removes the current orphan homes to the east of Ellerbeck Crescent, which are currently split from their neighbouring homes due to the ward boundary. • Many residents in the current Walkden South ward send their children to Ellenbrook Primary School; far fewer children travel across the A580 to attend primary school in either direction. • The Ellenbrook Village Centre contains a Co-op store as well as takeaway businesses. It is well-used by residents in both Ellenbrook and Walkden South, but is infrequently used by residents in Boothstown, who have their own shopping centre at the Standfield Centre. The shops are as close and accessible to residents in Walkden South as they are to most homes in Ellenbrook. • There is shared recreation space for Walkden South and Ellenbrook, with Bedford Fields and the Tyldesley loopline both easily-accessed and well-used by residents in these neighbourhoods. • The busway now provides a shared transport link, and the first stop on the busway straddles the boundary between the existing wards. A longstanding parking problem around the busway stop affects residents on both sides of the current ward boundary; uniting these areas in one ward will provide for more effective local government as well as reflecting community ties. • We do not support the Council proposal that the area around Harrop Street be added to Walkden South ward; this area has no affinity with Walkden and looks west to Little Hulton. The Council’s proposed boundary would lead to further electoral inequality, and would drag the Walkden South ward boundary to the west towards the centre of Little Hulton, adjacent to the former Little Hulton railway station site.

Worsley and Boothstown ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 9665, variance -4.53%) As we have been able to draw three wards north of the A580 without breaking this natural boundary, south of the A580 we are proposing a Worsley and Boothstown ward which is similar to the ward of the same name which existed until the 2003 review. This ward reunites two neighbouring and well-connected communities which were only separated by mathematical necessity in the previous review. Our new Worsley and Boothstown ward includes all the areas south of the A580 within the current Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward. The ward boundary continues along the A580 to the M60. It briefly runs south along the M60 before skirting east of the Alfred Avenue estate and south of Mabel Avenue to reach Greenleach Lane along the path of the dismantled railway. The boundary then follows the loopline south as far as Dukes Drive country park, then picks up the current ward boundary between Winton and Worsley wards. The streets around Alfred Avenue and Mabel Avenue are part of Roe Green village, even though they are separated by the M60. This is shown by their presence in the current polling district ID, with the polling place at Beesley Green Community Centre. The community facilities in Beesley Green are themselves well used by local people in Worsley village as well as locally within Roe Green. Our proposal would retain the integrity and community of Roe Green, whereas the Council proposal would split the village of Roe Green between two wards. The loopline provides a clear and distinct eastern boundary once it is south of Roe Green village. Our proposal will also retain the integrity of Worsley village. The Council proposal slashes through the centre of Worsley village, separating Worsley Green from St Mark’s Church Worsley. Worsley Brow is a major four-carriageway road, which means that the M60 is not a natural boundary at this point. The Council’s proposal would remove the community ties between the north and south of Worsley village – to the church, to the residential areas around Crossfield Drive which very much see themselves as part of Worsley village, and to St Mark’s school, which is the main primary school for children in the Worsley village area. Worsley and Boothstown are twin villages with a significant shared history and shared links. Until the 2003 review, they shared a ward, and the demographic shifts mean that reconstituting the Worsley and Boothstown ward makes the most sense both geographically and in terms of electoral equality. They share common community interests, which is ably demonstrated by the close working relationship between the Worsley Village Community Association, Worsley Civic Trust, and the Boothstown Residents Association, who have worked together across a range of shared projects including the umbrella organisations RAID and RAM. We do not believe that the Council’s proposals for an expanded Boothstown and Ellenbrook ward and a contrived Worsley and Westwood Park ward provide a good option. This is because:

• It is now possible to create three wards within reasonable variance of quota by including Ellenbrook north of the strong natural boundary of the A580. • As explained previously, residents in Ellenbrook have more in common with their neighbours in Walkden than with residents in Boothstown, south of the A580. • The Council’s proposed Worsley and Westwood Park ward splits Roe Green village in two, and despite the name actually splits Worsley village in half. The ward would bear the name Worsley but would not contain Worsley village church (St Mark’s) or the local primary school. • Worsley and Westwood Park have little in common; while Westwood Park looks south towards the rest of Eccles for schooling, shopping and community facilities, Worsley looks north. Although they are adjacent areas, the boundary between Eccles and Worsley is well established in this location.

Broadoak and Monton ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,080, variance -0.43%) East of Worsley and Boothstown, we propose a new Broadoak and Monton ward, covering the areas of Broadoak Park, Hazelhurst, south Moorside and Monton village. Sharing a western boundary with Worsley and Boothstown ward, the Broadoak and Monton ward boundary would continue south along the Bridgewater Canal and then east along the M602 until it reaches Wellington Road. It would then head north along Wellington Road and Monton Road, and then north-east along the former railway path. After skirting briefly west around the new homes on Bradford Road, it returns to the route of the former railway, heading north to the A580 with the former sewage works site on the left and Swinton Park golf course on the right, before following the A580 west to the M60 junction. We believe that this is a coherent ward, containing neighbouring communities which have much in common. The current ward boundaries between Worsley ward and ward, and between Swinton South ward and Eccles ward, are almost indistinguishable without prior knowledge. This new ward reunites all the areas of Swinton which are south of the A580 into a single ward. The Campbell Road area, currently in Swinton South, is part of the same community as the Houghton Lane area which is currently in Worsley ward. This community, on either side of Folly Lane, continues uninterrupted across Folly Brook into Monton, with many local residents in the north of the proposed ward using Monton village for schooling, shopping and entertainment. Although the A580 becomes more residential east of the M60, we still consider that it is a strong natural ward boundary at this point, especially with the recent busway works. Our view is that the ward boundaries should not cross the A580 unless necessary, and our proposals show that it is possible to create coherent wards which respect community ties without crossing the A580 at this point. Dukes Drive country park and the golf course are both accessed from the south, via Monton village, yet both the current ward alignment and the Council's draft proposal still includes them within a Worsley-based ward. Under our alternative, these green spaces would be located in the same ward as Monton village. North of Dukes Drive country park, the loopline provides a clear and distinct western boundary, whilst respecting the integrity of Roe Green village, which we believe should remain fully within Worsley ward. In the south of the ward, the canal and the M602 are strong boundaries at this point. There are strong transport links throughout the proposed ward, via Folly Lane and Worsley Road. The 484 bus serves almost all the communities in the ward, travelling through Monton village and then north via Folly Lane to Worsley Road, then east to Moorside Road and north through to the top of Hazelhurst Road. Other bus routes travel east-west along Worsley Road and north-south along Worsley Road and Folly Lane into Monton village. The former sewage works site has planning permission for new homes and enhanced green space, which will further enhance the links between the areas of Swinton to the north and Monton village to the south.

Swinton and Wardley (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,125, variance 0.01%) North of the A580, we propose a revised ward which we have elected to call Swinton and Wardley, which we feel better reflects the make-up of the ward. Wardley is a distinct community which was historically part of Worsley urban distinct rather than Swinton and Pendlebury, and should be reflected in the name. Our revised ward includes all of Swinton town centre. Swinton North is, in any case, a bit of a misnomer; even the existing ward would be better named Swinton West. We propose two amendments to the existing Swinton North ward boundary. In the north of the ward, we propose to draw the ward boundary slightly to the south, using Little Moss Lane as the boundary and then continuing the alignment of the lane west until it reaches the M60. This moves the streets north of Little Moss Lane and west of the A66 Manchester Road into our revised Clifton and Pendlebury ward. These streets are part of Clifton to the east rather than Wardley to the south, and this small revision better reflects the community ties at this location. In particular, this means that Clifton Primary School is now in a ward with the rest of the Clifton neighbourhood, rather than artificially separated from it. The same goes for the Golden Lion and Robin Hood pubs, which both serve the communities in Clifton rather than Wardley. In the south of the ward, our proposed boundary leaves the existing boundary on Station Road at the railway line and heads east and then south down Pendlebury Road. It then cuts to west of Mount Street and then travels south-west along Worsley Road and then west on the A580 until it returns to the existing boundary. We note that the Council's proposed revised boundary is the same as our proposal south of the A6 Chorley Road. This proposal unites Swinton town centre within one coherent ward, which is the second reason why we have proposed a name change to Swinton and Wardley. The current ward boundary splits the shopping centre and the town hall away from the Swinton Gateway community hub, the police station, and the shops to the west of Station Road, including Matalan. In the Council's proposals, the boundary runs along Chorley Road, which moves the town hall into Swinton North ward, but leaves the shopping centre separate from the community facilities and the town hall (ironically, to the north in their proposed Swinton South ward). We believe that where possible, town centres should be covered by a single ward, which creates better community links and more efficient local government. This is possible with our proposed ward alignment.

Clifton and Pendlebury (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,000, variance -1.22%) We propose a moderately revised Pendlebury ward, which we propose to name Clifton and Pendlebury which we feel better reflects the make-up of the ward. Our proposed Clifton and Pendlebury ward contains a number of amendments to the southern ward boundary, to better reflect communities. As discussed in our proposed Swinton and Wardley ward, we propose to move the ward boundary south in the Clifton area, along the alignment of Little Moss Lane between Manchester Road and the M60. This unites the majority of Clifton village within a single ward, including the local pubs and most importantly Clifton Primary School, for which the majority of the catchment area is in the rest of Clifton to the east and not Wardley to the south. Our revised boundary leaves the old boundary of the railway line at Pendlebury Road, and heads briefly south along Pendlebury Road before heading east along Swinton Hall Road, across the top of Victoria Park and Temple Drive, and continuing north of North Drive to rejoin the existing boundary on Road, north of Borchardt Drive. Our proposed boundary unites the lightly-populated industrial areas to the north of Swinton town centre into one coherent ward, unlike the existing boundary and the Council's revised boundary, both of which weave through some of the units unnecessarily. Our proposal moves the homes on Borchardt Drive from Pendlebury ward into our new Swinton Park ward. These new-build homes have more in common with Liebert Drive to the south than with the High Bank Road area to the north. We also propose to revise the ward boundary to run east down Agecroft Road from Bolton Road, and then south along the railway line to meet the existing ward boundary. This moves the Broomhall Road area from Pendlebury ward into our new Swinton Park ward. These homes are isolated from the remainder of the existing ward by the playing fields between the Henry Boddington pub and the Fire Station, and we believe that they have more in common with the homes opposite which are part of historic Pendlebury but are currently in the ward.

Swinton Park ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,125, variance 0.01%) We propose a new ward of Swinton Park, which brings together adjacent and linked communities which are currently in the Swinton South and Claremont wards, together with a small neighbouring area currently in Pendlebury ward. In the west, the shared border with Swinton and Wardley ward runs along Pendlebury Road, to the west of Mount Street and the south-west along Worsley Road to the A580. It travels east along the A580 and then south along the old railway alignment, skirting the Swinton Park golf course to the west and then south. The ward then skirts the Duncan Mathieson playing fields to the west and south, before reaching Lancaster Road. The boundary follows Lancaster Road south briefly, before following the existing ward boundary between Claremont and Weaste and Seedley east along the length of Light Oaks Road. It then skirts Lightoaks Park to the east until Swinton Park Road, and then heads east along Swinton Park Road to Broad Street. It follows the existing Pendlebury ward boundary south of St John Street as far as the railway line, before heading west and following the Clifton and Pendlebury ward boundary as outlined previously via Bolton Road, Hospital Road, and Swinton Hall Road. The shared Swinton Park name reflects the shared community interests which make up this ward. The area to the north of the A580 is known as Swinton Park, with Swinton Park golf course to the south-west of the proposed ward, and Swinton Park Road running through the heart of the south-east of the ward. The ward also contains Swinton's main municipal park, Victoria Park, as well as Oakwood Park and Lightoaks Park, making the name even more apt. Oakwood Park in particular provides shared recreational space which is used by residents from all parts of the proposed ward. Although it was moved into Claremont ward in the 2003 review, the area around the former Royal Manchester Children's Hospital (the "shark fin" of the current Claremont ward) is very much part of Swinton and Pendlebury borough, and the community links in this area run west into the remainder of suburban Swinton. The area of Pendlebury around Broomhall Road also has strong links with their adjacent neighbours, whilst being separated from the rest of Pendlebury ward by the playing fields to the north. Borchardt Drive has more in common with the homes to the south and east. There are strong transport links through the proposed ward. The 27 and 29 bus routes run up Lancaster Road, along the A580 and up Eccles Road. The 73 bus runs from Lancaster Road and up Barton Road. There are a plethora of bus routes along the A6, which run across the entire length of the ward east to west. It is not possible to draw a coherent overall set of boundary proposals without crossing the A580 at some point. We consider that the strong community links around Swinton Park, together with the fact that the A580 around Lancaster Road is residential, make this the most appropriate area to draw a ward that straddles both sides of the A580. To the south of the ward, we have retained continuity by using the existing boundary between Claremont ward and Weaste and Seedley ward, and also the existing Irwell Riverside boundary south of St John Street. Lightoaks Park creates a clear distinction between the communities to the west along Lancaster Road, and Irlams o' th' Height to the east. As well as better reflecting communities, our proposals for Swinton and Wardley and for Swinton Park also better match the requirements for electoral equity; both wards contain 10,125 electors, or just 0.01% variance from quota.

Eccles ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,560, variance 4.31%) We propose a revised Eccles ward, broadly based on the existing ward but revised to include the whole of Eccles town centre, and without Monton village as previously explained in our proposals for Broadoak and Monton ward. Our revised Eccles ward follows the boundary with the new Broadoak and Monton ward, and then heads south from the M602 to skirt west of the Lynwood industrial estate. The area west of the Lynwood estate and east of the canal forms part of our revised Winton ward. We then pick up the existing Eccles ward boundary at the railway line, heading east briefly and then south along Milton Close, which is the existing ward boundary. Where the existing boundary heads east along the A57, the new boundary heads west as far as the canal, before heading south to the Ship Canal. It then follows the existing Barton ward boundary east along the Ship Canal and then north, where it meets the current ward boundary at the Ladywell roundabout. The current boundary between Eccles ward and Barton ward runs along Church Street and Regent Street in Eccles town centre. This means that the shops and amenities to the south of Church Street, which include the main supermarket as well as the library, the former (now a community venue), and the bus station, are in a separate ward to the shopping centre, the market and the residential homes and flats in the town centre. As we have explained, we consider that uniting town centres within one ward is preferential - it enhances community links and it makes for better and more efficient local government to have a town centre represented by one set of Councillors. Our proposed Eccles ward brings the town centre together in one ward. This revised Eccles ward also better reflects community ties in residential areas. Under the current ward boundary and in the Council’s revised proposals, the homes around Kearton Drive are entirely isolated from residential homes in the rest of Barton ward. Under our proposals, they are reunited with the residential homes immediately to the north on the opposite side of Regent Street. In addition, we have maintained continuity by retaining the ward boundary at Milton Close rather than unnecessarily moving additional electors in this area. We don’t consider that the M602 is a natural boundary in central Eccles and there are clear links between Ellesmere Park to the north and the town centre to the south along Albert Road and Gilda Brook Road, in addition to pedestrian footbridges at Old Wellington Road and adjacent to . The revised ward also better reflects local transport links, reuniting the railway station, the tram stop and the bus station within the same ward. Local buses serve all corners of the ward, with a regular bus service along the Liverpool Road and Trafford Road, as well as connecting Ellesmere Park with Eccles town centre. The revised boundary also reflects community recreation facilities; Eccles recreation centre and Eccles recreation ground would both be contained within the revised Eccles ward; these facilities are well-used by local residents from across Ellesmere Park, Eccles, and Patricroft. West of the town centre, the boundary is indistinguishable between the areas that would consider themselves town centre homes and Patricroft to the west, and the two communities share common transport links, community facilities and shopping habits.

Weaste and Seedley ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,185, variance 0.6%) We propose a broadly unchanged Weaste and Seedley ward, with two minor amendments to the existing arrangements. The current ward boundary between Weaste and Seedley and what is currently Claremont ward runs along Orient Road. We propose to extend the ward boundary north, to include the area bounded by the Eccles ward boundary to the west, the Duncan Mathieson playing fields to the north, and Lancaster Road to the east. This reunites two areas of the same neighbourhood which are currently artificially split along Orient Road. This area is easy to identify on a map as almost all the road names begin with “O” – by moving the ward boundary slightly to the north to incorporate all the “O” named roads, this improves community ties within the ward. We also propose to remove a small area of the Weaste and Seedley ward in the south-east of the ward to form part of the new Quays ward – the new boundary runs from the M602 west of Ronaldsay Gardens, west along Eccles New Road for a short distance, and then south along Kirkham Street to meet the old boundary adjacent to . The industrial units in this area look towards South Road and are within the orbit of the Quays, and the residential area around My Street has as much in common with the homes to the east as it does with the homes to the west. This area also includes Langworthy tram stop, which serves the homes along Eccles New Road which are currently part of the Ordsall ward and form part of our proposed Quays ward. We disagree with the Council’s proposed Weaste and Seedley ward. In particular, we are concerned by the revised boundary along Eccles Old Road, which splits the established community in Hope around the in two. The Hope area is a well- established community with shared interests, and we believe that the residential areas around the Hospital should be retained in a single ward where possible. This would enable better representation both for residents and for patients and staff at the Hospital. Our modest amendments to the ward provide for efficient local government through electoral continuity, and they also better reflect the need for electoral equality; our proposed Weaste and Seedley ward has a variance of just 0.6%, compared to the Council’s proposed ward which has a much larger variance of 5%.

Blackfriars ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,460, variance 3.32%) The huge population growth in the city centre necessitates some significant changes and new wards. The Blackfriars area in the city centre is bounded by the River Irwell on three sides. The river is also the city boundary to the east. This leaves a limited number of options to draw a coherent and suitable ward boundary. As the areas around the potential ward boundary are relatively continuous and homogenous, our approach in this area was to look for the most natural and coherent boundary possible. Therefore, we propose a Blackfriars ward bounded by the River Irwell on three sides. The land ward boundary would run from the river adjacent to the Old Pint Pot pub adjacent to the Crescent, along the centre of Chapel Street to the junction with Bridge Street, and then down the centre of Bridge Street to the border with the City of Manchester. This creates a natural and simple boundary, and creates a Blackfriars ward with a 2024 electorate of 10,460. The City Council’s equivalent ward is similar, but it follows a less coherent and more unnatural boundary, meandering through back streets to the north of Chapel Street. We feel that Chapel Street provides a more natural and appropriate boundary. We also do not support the Council’s split of Adelphi Street; we think including all of Adelphi Street within a single ward makes more sense. The Council’s recently-published Salford Crescent Masterplan includes areas on both sides of Adelphi Street in an “Adelphi Development zone”. Our proposed Blackfriars ward contains the entirety of this development zone within one ward, whereas the Council’s proposal splits the development zone across two wards.

Ordsall ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 9980, variance -1.42%) South of Blackfriars, our proposed Ordsall ward reflects the heart of the existing Ordsall ward, although given the enormous population growth, it is of course much smaller. 100% of the new Ordsall ward is contained within the current oversized ward. Our proposed Ordsall ward boundary runs north along Bridge Street, west along Chapel Street, and south along Oldfield Road. It then travels west along Regent Road to the M602 junction, south along Trafford Road, and east along the southern boundary of Ordsall Park. It heads south west along Taylorson Street, south along Warburton Street, west along Ordsall Lane, and then south-east to the east of the Soapworks before following the city boundary along the river back to Bridge Street. We feel that this proposal best reflects the heart of the Ordsall neighbourhood. Ordsall Park, , and the new railway link are all contained within this ward. We consider that Ordsall Park is a natural boundary; the homes to the south of Ordsall Park connect to Trafford Road via Exchange Quay, and therefore are better included within our proposed Quays ward. The ward boundary also creates electoral continuity by ensuring that the New Islington area to the south of Chapel Street remains within the Ordsall ward, as it is currently. Oldfield Road and Ordsall Lane provide clear and effective transport links between the north and south of the ward. We have severe concerns about the long “finger” shaped section of the Council’s proposed Quays ward. We don’t believe that this arrangement best reflects community ties, and we are concerned that to accept such an obviously misshapen ward risks undermining public confidence in the boundaries. We also don’t consider that such a ward shape allows for efficient and effective local government. We believe that to include a ward with such a shape would require enormous extenuating circumstances, and we don’t believe that these circumstances exist in this instance. We have clearly shown that there is an alternative proposal which better reflects community ties and efficient governance. The legal guidance asks the commission to consider links between parts of the ward – these are clearly non-existent with a ward of such unusual shape, which isolates large numbers of residents from the remainder of the ward.

Quays ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 9,890, variance -2.31%) From the M602 junction, our proposed Quays ward boundary runs south along Trafford Road, and east along the southern boundary of Ordsall Park. It heads south west along Taylorson Street, south along Warburton Street, west along Ordsall Lane, and then south- east to the east of the Soapworks to the river. It follows the river west to the locks where it meets the ward boundary for Weaste and Seedley ward, heading north to the east of Weaste cemetary, across Eccles New Road and west of Ronaldsay Gardens before returning along the M602. We feel that this arrangement provides the most coherent possible ward based around the Salford Quays area. It contains exceptional transport links across the ward, with eight separate tram stops serving all parts of the ward – no part of the ward is more than a short walk away from a tram stop. Trafford Road, Broadway and South Langworthy Road provide clear road links through the entire ward, and all areas of the ward are well served by bus links. In the north of the ward, the revised boundary with Weaste and Seedley ensures that all the residential and industrial areas which form part of the Quays hinterland around South Langworthy Road are included within the Quays ward. The ward also includes the residential area bounded by the M602 to the north and Eccles New Road to the south. The Council have proposed that these flats be included in their draft Pendleton and Charlestown ward. We cannot support this proposal. These flats are completely orphaned from the Pendleton area by a large motorway and a railway line, and the junction at the end of the M602 is arguably the busiest in the entire city. There are no links between these flats and the area to the north of the motorway, not even a pedestrian footbridge in this location. The residents in these flats look south towards the Quays, and have no affinity with the area to the north. We therefore consider that they are best placed within our revised Quays ward. We also consider that adjacent to the busy M602 junction in the north of the ward, Trafford Road now constitutes a large natural boundary. The residential area around Howard Street is therefore better served by being paired with the flats on Eccles New Road to the north and around Broadway to the south, rather than as the Council proposes with the Ordsall area to the east. As discussed before, we do not support the Council’s proposed Quays ward. It has an illogical shape which does not reflect community ties or serve to provide efficient and effective local government.

Pendleton and Crescent (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,275, variance 1.49%) To the north of the M602, we propose a Pendleton and Crescent ward. Unlike the Council's proposed Pendleton and Charlestown ward, which is an entirely new ward, our proposed Pendleton and Crescent is based on the existing Langworthy ward and includes all of the existing Langworthy ward with the exception of a small area in the north-west around Eccles Old Road. We would be open to an alternative name of Langworthy and Crescent. From the M602 junction, the ward boundary heads east along the motorway and heads north along Derby Road, utilising the existing boundary between Weaste and Seedley and Langworthy. The boundary then follows Lower Seedley Road and Seedley Road as far as Langworthy Road, then north to Eccles Old Road and east to Broad Street. The boundary follows Broad Street before heading north along Frederick Road as far as the river, and then follows the river south back to the Crescent. It then heads south along Oldfield Road and west along Regent Road back to the M602 junction. To the south, the M602 and Regent Road provide clear, strong and natural boundaries. As previously discussed, we do not support the Council's proposal to include the Eccles New Road flats in a ward with land to the north - these flats are completely cut-off from Pendleton by the M602 and the railway line. In the west and east, we have maintained continuity by utilising existing ward boundaries at Derby Road in the west and Oldfield Road in the east. In the north, we have drawn the boundary in the Frederick Road area to ensure that the main University campus is contained within a single ward. It also ensures that the vast majority of the Crescent masterplan area - a key Council priority - is contained within this ward. There are strong transport links between the existing Langworthy ward and the newly-added areas around the Crescent and New Windsor to the east; Liverpool Street serves as an arterial route running the entirety of the ward from west to east, linking in with the north- south routes of Langworthy Road, Fitzwarren Street, and Albion Way. The bus station at Salford Shopping City ensures that all areas of the proposed ward are well connected by public transport. The shopping centre acts as a central hub for shopping and for community facilities, all of which can be easily accessed by any part of the ward.

Height and Charlestown ward (forecast 2024 electorate: 10,265, variance 1.39%) Finally, we propose a new ward of Height and Charlestown. This ward comprises the western section of the existing Irwell Riverside ward, together with Irlams o' th' Height from Claremont ward and a small section of the current Langworthy ward. The proposed ward follows the current Irwell Riverside boundary from Broad Street at the Height, to the River Irwell, and follows the course of the Irwell past Castle Irwell to Frederick Road. The boundary then heads south along Frederick Road, west along Broad Street and Eccles Old Road, south along Langworthy Road and then west along Seedley Road and Lower Seedley Road. It then picks up the existing Langworthy ward boundary through Buile Hill Park, before heading east along Eccles Old Road, north along Claremont Road to Lightoaks Road, before skirting to the east of Lightoaks Park and returning to Broad Street along Swinton Park Road. We believe that this is a coherent ward which reflects the community ties on each side of the A6 Broad Street. By incorporating the western part of the existing Irwell Riverside ward, it also retains some electoral continuity. Irlams o' th' Height and the Duchy estate have strong established links. Residents in the Duchy area are likely to use the Height for their shopping and some also for their socialising at one of the pubs in the area. The two areas formed part of the same ward prior to the 2003 review. The Duchy area also has strong links to the Brindle Heath area to the east. We have retained this link, but the Council's proposed Pendleton and Charlestown ward severs this community link. The Council's proposals separate the Duchy estate and Duchy caravan park into separate wards. The 79 bus route links the Height, Duchy, and Brindle Heath. There are clear school links between Duchy and Charlestown, with local children in the Duchy area likely to attend Albion Academy. There is also a shared student community around the Height and in Charlestown; both areas are popular with students living out of halls, often in shared terraced accomodation. The area adjacent to Eccles Old Road and the A6 around Buile Hill visual arts college has more in common with the neighbouring Height than it does with Langworthy to the south, especially around Chaseley Road and Castleway. Residents here are likely to head north- west for their shopping and their socialising rather than south to Langworthy and Pendleton. The Council's proposed Pendleton and Charlestown ward also transfers the area around Castleway into a new ward, but the geographical make-up of their new ward leaves this area linked via a narrow strip of Langworthy Road to areas to the east with which it has no natural affinity.