New electoral arrangements for Final recommendations September 2019 Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at: Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Halton? 2 Our proposals for Halton 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 7 Draft recommendations consultation 7 Further draft recommendations consultation 8 Final recommendations 9 , Moore & 11 Ditton, Hale Village & 14 east 16 Runcorn west 20 east 22 Widnes west 24 Conclusions 27 Summary of electoral arrangements 27 What happens next? 28 Equalities 31 Appendices 33 Appendix A 33 Final recommendations for Halton Borough Council 33 Appendix B 33 Outline map 33 Appendix C 34

Draft recommendations: Submissions received 34 Further draft recommendations: Submissions received 35 Appendix D 37 Glossary and abbreviations 37

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors • Amanda Nobbs OBE OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and the review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Halton?

7 We have conducted a review of Halton Borough Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Halton. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Halton are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Halton

9 Halton should be represented by 54 councillors, two fewer than there are now.

10 Halton should have 18 wards, three fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Halton.

How will the recommendations affect you?

13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. Your ward name may also change.

14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

2

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Halton. We then held three periods of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 June 2018 Number of councillors decided 26 June 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 3 September 2018 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 4 December 2018 consultation 11 February 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions Publication of further draft recommendations; start 28 May 2019 of third consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 24 June 2019 continued to form final recommendations 3 September 2019 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2018 2024 Electorate of Halton 96,542 100,292 Number of councillors 56 54 Average number of electors per 1,724 1,857 councillor

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. Seventeen of our proposed 18 wards for Halton will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 4% by 2024.

23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

Number of councillors 24 Halton Borough Council currently has 56 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that decreasing by two will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

25 As Halton Borough Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council should have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. This presumption is based on the principle that, as the Borough Council elects a third of its members each year, all electors should have an equal opportunity to take part in every election. Halton currently has 21 wards, including three two-councillor wards and two single- councillor wards. Given the presumption in legislation, we only move away from a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards where we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria. This leeway provides us with the scope, in exceptional circumstances, to avoid the splitting of strongly identified communities.

26 Reflecting the presumption that Halton should be represented by three- councillor wards, we therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 54 councillors elected from 18 three-councillor wards.

27 We received three submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations. One resident proposed that there be just four councillors. Whilst another proposed that each of our 18 wards be represented by two councillors, making a total of 36. Neither proposal was accompanied by evidence which described how the Council would operate with the proposed number of councillors.

28 The Halton Conservative Association proposed a warding scheme comprising 18 two-councillor wards and five single-councillor wards, which would equate to a council size of 41. Whilst the submission included some information about the operation of a council size of 41, we were not persuaded that it provided sufficient evidence to change our initial conclusions on council size.

29 We received a further proposal, for 26 two-councillor wards, from a respondent to our further draft recommendations consultation. This proposal was contradictory to the presumption for three-councillor wards. We have therefore maintained 54 councillors for our final recommendations.

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

6

Ward boundaries consultation 30 We received 52 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included a borough-wide proposal from the Council and two from local residents. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for wards in particular areas of the borough.

31 The borough-wide scheme provided for 55 councillors. This pattern proposed a single-councillor ward comprising Daresbury and parishes, with Moore and Sandymoor parishes combined to form a three-councillor ward alongside three-councillor wards for Runcorn, Widnes and the Hale peninsula. We carefully considered the proposal, noting that it would not be consistent with the general presumption for a uniform pattern of three-member wards. However, we were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards would result in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally suggested clearly identifiable boundaries.

32 One of the local residents proposed eight two-councillor wards. The other proposed 18 three-councillor wards. In neither case were we convinced that good electoral equality would be provided or that the boundaries proposed were clear and identifiable.

33 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

34 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Halton helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

35 Our draft recommendations were for 18 three-councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation 36 We received 177 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. The Halton Conservative Association proposed a borough-wide scheme based on a pattern of two-councillor and single-councillor wards made up of current polling districts. As well as breaching the presumption of three-member wards, this warding scheme would result in electoral variances ranging from +20% to

7

-18%. These are levels of inequality which we are not prepared to recommend. We have therefore not based our final recommendations on this proposal.

37 The Council proposed changes to our draft recommendations for /Birchfield and Halton Brook/Grange. The Council also commented on the draft recommendations for Preston Brook and Vale and proposed several alternative ward names in Runcorn and Widnes. Most of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals in Halton Village, Hale Parish, and the parishes to the east of Runcorn. In these cases, respondents opposed the combination of parished areas with parts of unparished Widnes and Runcorn, respectively.

38 We received a large number of objections to our proposal to combine Preston Brook parish and parts of south-east Runcorn in a three-member ward. A feature of many of these objections was the emphasis on community links between Preston Brook and Daresbury. Councillors for the current Daresbury ward and Moore Parish Council proposed a pattern of wards in which Daresbury, Moore and Preston Brook parishes should form a two-councillor ward with part of Sandymoor. The remainder of Sandymoor would then form a two-councillor ward as would the Brookvale area of Runcorn. Other respondents, commenting on Preston Brook, did not refer to any community links between Daresbury, Moore and Sandymoor

39 Departing from our draft recommendations can have consequential implications for adjoining areas. In some cases we have made changes relying on evidence we have received at previous stages of the review. We considered that representations about Halton Village contained strong evidence of community identity and we gave very careful consideration to our proposals for this area. However, accommodating this proposal would require significant changes to our proposed wards across the east of Runcorn. We therefore considered that an additional period of consultation was appropriate, to allow local residents and organisations to comment upon new proposals for Halton Village and their impact on the adjoining areas. Our further draft recommendations were for four three-councillor wards covering Brookvale, Castlefields, Halton Lea, Halton Village, Norton, Murdishaw, Palace Fields, Preston Brook and Windmill Hill.

Further draft recommendations consultation 40 We received 86 submissions during consultation on our further draft recommendations. These included the Council’s objection, in which it favoured a small modification to its original proposal. We received around 30 submissions broadly supporting our further draft recommendations for Halton Village and around 50 objecting to any ward which would combine Preston Brook with the Murdishaw

8

and Brookvale areas. A petition presenting objections to the proposals for Preston Brook was raised by the Parish Council.

Final recommendations 41 Halton Council has an electoral cycle in which a third of councillors are elected at each local election. We have no role in setting the electoral cycle but, under the legislation, we must reflect it in making our recommendations. This means that when we review councils like Halton that have this pattern of elections, we will provide electoral arrangements which give all electors the opportunity to vote in all local elections, unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so. In practice, this means that there is a presumption that all of Halton’s wards will be represented by three councillors.

42 Throughout the review, respondents to our consultations have argued that combinations of parished and unparished areas would result in electoral outcomes in which the parishes would be inadequately represented. However, we note the duties of elected councillors set out in the Council’s constitution, to represent the whole borough and all of their constituents. Combining distinct communities to form wards which allow people to vote at every election is not exceptional and Halton is not exceptional in having parishes adjacent to unparished areas.

43 We sought to identify boundaries which reflected our statutory criteria, provided wards comprised exclusively of parished areas and avoided the need to split parishes between wards. However, we could not identify any warding pattern that would achieve this. Furthermore, we did not receive evidence that demonstrated the exceptional circumstances which would justify either splitting parishes between wards or breaking the three-member warding pattern. Therefore, in east Runcorn and West Widnes, we recommend wards which combine parished and unparished areas. 44 Our final recommendations are based on the further draft recommendations in east Runcorn and on the draft recommendations in the remainder of the borough. We recommend that the borough be represented by 18 three-councillor wards. We very carefully considered appropriate warding arrangements for Hale and Preston Brook and recognise that these areas are distinct from their neighbouring communities. However, as indicated above, we could not identify a warding pattern that would provide good electoral equality and avoid dividing these communities between wards. We consider our final recommendations will generally provide for good electoral equality while best balancing community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

9

45 The tables and maps on pages 11–25 detail our final recommendations for each area of Halton. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

46 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 27 and on the large map accompanying this report.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

10

Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor 3 12%

Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor 47 The parished area from Moore to Preston Brook is significantly under- represented. Without changes to electoral arrangements, the area will become much more severely under-represented due to the amount of housing development taking place both now and in the near future.

48 We received a limited amount of community evidence in response to our invitation for warding proposals. It was argued by some that residents of Daresbury, Moore and Sandymoor enjoy community interactions, whilst others argued that Daresbury’s ties were with Preston Brook.

49 One proposal advocated a single-councillor ward comprising Daresbury and Preston Brook parishes together with a two-councillor ward comprising Moore and

11

Sandymoor parishes. The resulting two-councillor ward would have a variance of 36% by 2024. Another proposal was for two two-councillor wards, involving the splitting of Sandymoor parish between them or the combination of part of Sandymoor parish with the Windmill Hill area of Runcorn. However, the respondent gave no indication of how Sandymoor parish could be divided in a way which would reflect community identities within the parish.

50 While there is a general presumption that the borough will have three-member wards, given the community evidence received, we carefully considered alternative schemes for this area which would result in a mixed pattern of one-, two- and three- councillor wards. Our test was whether there were exceptional circumstances which provide sufficient grounds to move away from a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards.

51 We considered that whilst a three-councillor ward comprising Daresbury, Moore and Sandymoor parishes would have a variance of 12% by 2024, this level of electoral inequality was justified because it would maintain connections between the three parishes without splitting any of them between wards. This approach would be consistent with the provision of three-member wards with good electoral equality in other parts of the borough.

52 Objections to our draft recommendations centred on the exclusion of Preston Brook parish from the warding for this area and our proposal to ward it with the of Runcorn. Objectors argued that Preston Brook parish shares no community identity or interest with the Brookvale or Murdishaw areas of Runcorn. Others argued that our draft recommendations would threaten the survival of the parish councils. Some objectors argued that their concerns outweigh our regard to electoral equality.

53 Many objectors described the roundabout at the eastern end of the Southern Expressway as an obstacle to access. However, we note that access between Preston Brook and the parishes to the north is principally via the roundabout at Junction 11 of the M56 which appeared to us to be a bigger and busier roundabout to navigate.

54 We acknowledge that Preston Brook is a distinct community and noted submissions which argued that residents of Preston Brook use and engage facilities in Daresbury. We note, however, that our proposals avoid dividing parishes between borough wards thereby reflecting community identities, ensuring good electoral equality and maintaining a three-councillor warding pattern. Furthermore, we consider that in a pattern of three-councillor wards, three borough councillors can effectively represent the interests of residents in this parished area. We have

12

therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for Daresbury, Moore & Sandymoor as final.

13

Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank 3 -7%

Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank 55 Our draft recommendation for Ditton, Hale Village and Halebank ward attracted objections from Hale and Halebank parish councils, local organisations and residents, particularly of Hale Village, but also from a small number of Ditton residents. Our draft recommendation gave rise to a petition signed by around 180

14

local residents. Of particular concern was the inclusion of areas which have a predominantly rural character with the urban parts of south-west Widnes.

56 Objectors proposed a single-councillor ward to represent either Hale parish or Hale and Halebank parishes combined. In each case, the result would be a higher degree of electoral inequality than we are normally prepared to recommend. Hale Parish Council’s proposal would result in a -16% electoral variance by 2024. In Halebank Parish Council’s proposal, the variance would be 57%. This degree of inequality could be reduced but we would need to split Halebank parish between wards and include part of the parish in a ward with the Ditton area. We have received neither proposals nor evidence which would support the splitting of Halebank parish between wards.

57 Whilst we recognise that Hale has a character and identity which is distinct from the more urban Widnes area, we consider that in a three-councillor pattern of wards, three borough councillors representing the Hale and Halebank parishes area can effectively represent the interests of their residents while avoiding the need to split either parish between borough wards.

58 We therefore confirm, as final, our draft recommendations for Ditton, Hale Village & Halebank ward.

15

Runcorn east

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors 3 -7% Halton Lea 3 5% Norton North 3 6% Norton South & Preston Brook 3 -9%

Halton Castle and Halton Lea 59 The Council proposed a Halton Castle & Windmill Hill ward which would largely be a combination of existing wards but excluding The Brow. The Liberal Democrats proposed a broadly similar ward. One resident proposed that the current Halton Castle ward be split in two. However, this would neither provide for good electoral equality nor reflect our presumption in favour of three- councillor wards. Our draft recommendations were based on the Council’s Halton Castle & Windmill Hill ward which placed most of Main Street in Halton Lea ward. We also proposed that the expressway leading to the would form the western boundary of the ward.

16

60 The Council’s and Liberal Democrats’ Halton Lea ward, with ShoppingCity at its centre, would combine The Brow, Hallwood Park, part of Palace Fields and the area between the Central Expressway, Weston Link roads and Halton Lodge School. We proposed to modify this by making the Central and Southern expressways the boundaries of Halton Lea ward. We also proposed to include the part of Palace Fields which lies between the busway and the Southern Expressway. This includes the hospital and The Glen.

61 We received over 40 objections to the draft recommendation for Halton Castle & Windmill Hill. Councillor Howard proposed that the current Halton Castle ward be extended by the addition of that part of the Windmill Hill area which lies to the north of the Runcorn busway. Other local councillors were divided between those expressing support for Councillor Howard’s proposal and those supporting the draft recommendations which were based on the Council’s original proposal. Whilst a number of local residents and the Friends of Halton Village expressly supported Councillor Howard’s proposal, others disagreed with the addition of any part of Windmill Hill in Halton Castle ward.

62 We were persuaded by submissions to amend our draft recommendations for Halton Village. In our further draft recommendations, we proposed a Halton Castle ward which would contain The Brow, and include Phoenix Park and the site of a substantial anticipated housing development to the west of . We were not persuaded that the Windmill Hill community should be divided between wards and proposed, as part of our further draft recommendations, that Windmill Hill should form part of a three-councillor Norton North ward.

63 During consultation on our further draft recommendations, the Council, supported by the Runcorn Central Branch Labour Party, broadly reiterated its original proposal, modifying it slightly in respect of properties on Main Street. The Council argued that the Croft estate should form a part of Halton Lea ward and that Windmill Hill form part of a Halton Castle & Windmill Hill ward. The Council then argued that these changes would allow the Brookvale area to the included in a single ward. Some councillors making individual responses also argued that the Brookvale area should not be split between wards. They argued that the area to the north of the busway and that to the south of the busway form a single community. However, we received around 30 expressions of support for our further draft recommendations. Several of those qualified that support by advocating that Halton Cemetery and the whole of the Astmoor industrial estate be included in Halton Castle ward. Including all of the industrial estate in Halton Castle ward would mean that and its principal access route would also be included in the proposed ward.

17

64 We acknowledge the support for our proposed Halton Castle ward and are persuaded that the suggested modifications to it are appropriate, noting that they have no impact on electoral representation.

65 We received objections to our proposed inclusion of the Brookvale Avenue North and South areas in Halton Lea ward. However, given our recommendations for Halton Castle ward, Halton Lea would be significantly over-represented, having an electoral variance of -14% were we to include those areas in Norton South & Preston Brook ward. We are not prepared to recommend that degree of electoral inequality. We have therefore decided to confirm the Halton Lea ward proposed in our further draft recommendations (and amended in respect of Halton cemetery) as final.

Norton North and Norton South & Preston Brook 66 The Council proposed a single-councillor ward comprising the parishes of Daresbury and Preston Brook and a retention of the current Norton North ward. The Liberal Democrats proposed a three-councillor ward comprising Preston Brook parish and Runcorn North ward. Both the Council and Liberal Democrats proposed that a large part of Palace Fields be added to Norton South ward.

67 Because the Council elects by thirds, we were unwilling to recommend a single- councillor ward in the absence of compelling reasons to do so. In considering the Liberal Democrats’ proposed Runcorn East ward, we found no evidence to persuade us that Preston Brook parish should be combined with Norton North ward. We noted that the principal access between Preston Brook and Norton North would be via the large roundabout at the end of the Southern Expressway, but that this route more readily gives access to the areas of Brookvale and Murdishaw Avenue than to Norton North. We therefore proposed to combine Preston Brook and Brookvale in a three-councillor Preston Brook & Vale ward as part of our draft recommendations.

68 Our proposals for Halton Village and Halton Lea meant that in order to reflect our statutory considerations, we needed to address the consequential impact of those changes on Norton North, Norton South and Preston Brook.

69 We recognise that Preston Brook is a distinct community. We note submissions which argue that residents of Preston Brook engage with Daresbury’s church and primary school but also note that children in the parish attend other schools. We note that access between Preston Brook and Brookvale is via a roundabout at the end of the Southern Expressway, but also that the principal access between Preston Brook and Daresbury is via the large roundabout at the which is arguably a greater barrier.

70 Our proposals avoid splitting any parish between borough wards and we consider that this approach thereby reflects community identities, ensuring good

18

electoral equality and maintaining a three-councillor warding pattern. Furthermore, we consider that in a pattern of three-councillor wards, three borough councillors representing the Preston Brook parish area can effectively represent the interests of its residents. We are not persuaded that our proposals put at risk any individual parish, or indeed, parishes in general.

19

Runcorn west

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Beechwood & Heath 3 8% Bridgewater 3 9% Grange 3 4% Mersey & Weston 3 8%

Beechwood & Heath and Mersey & Weston Point 71 Our draft recommendations for this area drew heavily on the observations we made whilst visiting the western part of Runcorn. In particular, we were not satisfied that Weston Point should be separated from Weston Village or that either area would naturally sit in a ward with Beechwood. We considered that Clifton Lane would provide an appropriate spine to a ward which links Heath with Beechwood as suggested by two local residents.

72 We proposed an Old Town & Weston Point ward, the name having been suggested to us during consultation, and a South Runcorn ward.

20

73 Whilst we received broad support for our proposed boundaries, one resident proposed that the boundary between Halton Lea and South Runcorn should follow the expressway until the boundary with Daresbury begins, instead of following the railway line. This resident said that it wouldn’t change the populations of the wards as there are no houses there, but it would put an important Beechwood footpath entirely inside Beechwood ward. We are not persuaded that this change would produce a significant benefit but note that the proposed boundary would be less distinct than that which formed our draft recommendations.

74 Although we received broad support for our proposed ward boundaries, the names attracted a number of objections. Beechwood & Heath was generally proposed as being more appropriate than South Runcorn and we accept that proposal as part of our final recommendations.

75 The name Old Town & Weston Point also attracted objection, but in this case, respondents to our consultation suggested a range of names. Some respondents suggested that Old Town form part of the name, while others strongly opposed that suggestion. Having considered the range of names suggested, we propose, as part of our final recommendations, the name Mersey & Weston.

Bridgewater and Grange 76 The Council initially proposed a three-councillor Bridgewater ward which would extend from the new development next to the Ship Canal at The Decks to the large roundabout next to ShoppingCity on Central Expressway. In our draft recommendations, we modified the Council’s proposal in order to provide electoral equality in both the Bridgewater and Grange areas. Our proposal would achieve this by dividing the Halton Brook estate between Grange and Bridgewater wards. The Council and ward councillors objected to this proposal, suggesting that the whole of Halton Brook should be included in Bridgewater ward and that electoral equality be secured by including Morval Crescent and part of Boston Avenue north of the B5155 in Grange ward.

77 We are persuaded that this proposal will reflect community identity, particularly on the Halton Brook estate, and will provide an acceptable level of electoral equality. In making our final recommendations we have therefore adopted the ward boundaries suggested by the Council.

21

Widnes east

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Appleton 3 -9% Central & West Bank 3 -9% Farnworth 3 8% Halton View 3 -5%

Appleton, Central & West Bank, Farnworth and Halton View 78 The Council initially provided the only detailed proposal for the whole of this area whilst one local resident made a specific proposal for Deirdre Avenue.

79 The Council initially proposed two wards which crossed the railway line which passes through north Widnes. The Council also proposed a central Widnes ward

22

which was based on inaccurately mapped electoral data. We modified the Council’s proposal for central Widnes in order to provide good electoral equality. Our draft recommendations were also informed by our visit to this area and our subsequent conclusions that ward boundaries should follow the railway line and that the Kingsway area is more closely related to the centre of Widnes than the Ball o’ Ditton area.

80 We received no objections to the boundaries we proposed in our draft recommendations. The Council suggested that we adopt the ward names of Appleton and Central & West Bank instead of Appleton Chadwick and Riverside & Town respectively. In making our final recommendations, we have accepted the Council’s ward name proposals for this area.

23

Widnes west

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Bankfield 3 -8% Birchfield 3 6% Highfield 3 -9% Hough Green 3 -2%

Bankfield and Highfield 81 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on our modifications to the Council’s proposals for central Widnes and the observations we made when we visited Ditton. We proposed that the Clincton View area be included as a whole in

24

Bankfield ward and that the Radnor Drive, Crossway and Dundalk Road areas be combined with the Ball o’ Ditton area in a Kingsway Heath ward.

82 We received no objections to the boundaries of the wards we proposed in our draft recommendations, but the Council suggested that we adopt the name Highfield instead of Kingsway Heath. In making our final recommendations, we have accepted the Council’s ward name proposal for this area.

Birchfield and Hough Green 83 As a consequence of our decision with regard to Farnworth and in order to provide good electoral equality, we proposed modifications to the Council’s initial proposal for this area. We proposed that housing on both sides of Norland’s Lane be included in Birchfield ward. We consider that residents on both sides of Norland’s Lane are unlikely to regard the lane as a boundary between communities. We also added Heathfield Park and Poleacre Drive to Hough Green ward. These roads are connected to Hough Green by Queensbury Way and Hough Green Road in an area where housing is situated on cul-de-sacs which are connected by these local spine roads.

84 Whilst we received support for our proposed Birchfield ward from one resident, the Council objected to our proposal that an area to the east of Road be included in Hough Green ward. Whilst we accept that Prescot Road would, in some respects, present a justifiable ward boundary, the consequences of doing so would be a higher level of electoral inequality than we are normally prepared to recommend. We do not consider that there is sufficient evidence of community identity to justify a high electoral variance in this area and therefore confirm our draft recommendations as final.

25

26

Conclusions 85 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Halton, referencing the 2018 and 2024 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2018 2024 Number of councillors 54 54 Number of electoral wards 18 18 Average number of electors per councillor 1,788 1,857 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 5 1 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 1 0 from the average

Final recommendations

Halton Borough Council should be made up of 54 councillors representing 18 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Mapping

Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Halton. You can also view our final recommendations for Halton on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

27

What happens next? 86 We have now completed our review of Halton Borough Council. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2020.

28

Equalities 87 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

29

30

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Halton Borough Council Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Appleton 3 4,902 1,634 -9% 5,069 1,690 -9%

2 Bankfield 3 5,280 1,760 -2% 5,121 1,707 -8%

Beechwood & 3 3 6,116 2,039 14% 6,043 2,014 8% Heath

4 Birchfield 3 6,045 2,015 13% 5,880 1,960 6%

5 Bridgewater 3 5,727 1,909 7% 6,085 2,028 9%

Central & West 6 3 4,983 1,661 -7% 5,075 1,692 -9% Bank

Daresbury, Moore 7 3 3,334 1,111 -38% 6,238 2,079 12% & Sandymoor

Ditton, Hale 8 Village & 3 5,265 1,755 -2% 5,177 1,726 -7% Halebank

9 Farnworth 3 6,034 2,011 13% 6,031 2,010 8%

10 Grange 3 5,980 1,993 11% 5,785 1,928 4%

31

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % 11 Halton Castle 3 4,923 1,641 -8% 5,156 1,719 -7%

12 Halton Lea 3 5,102 1,701 -5% 5,823 1,941 5%

13 Halton View 3 5,338 1,779 0% 5,269 1,756 -5%

14 Highfield 3 5,225 1,742 -3% 5,078 1,693 -9%

15 Hough Green 3 5,581 1,860 4% 5,454 1,818 -2%

16 Mersey & Weston 3 5,752 1,917 7% 6,020 2,007 8%

17 Norton North 3 5,819 1,940 8% 5,906 1,969 6%

Norton South & 18 3 5,136 1,712 -4% 5,082 1,694 -9% Preston Brook

Totals 54 96,542 – – 100,292

Averages – – 1,788 – – 1,857 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Halton Borough Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

32

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north- west/cheshire/halton

33

Appendix C Draft recommendations: Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/cheshire/halton

Local Authority

• Halton Borough Council

Political Groups

• Central and East Runcorn Labour Party • East Runcorn Labour Party • Halton Conservative Association • Halton Borough Council Liberal Democrat Group • Weaver Vale Constituency Labour Party

Councillors

• Councillors J. & M. Bradshaw (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor C. Carlin (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor E. Cargill (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor P. Hignett (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor R. Hignett (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor H. Howard (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor P. Lloyd Jones (Halton Borough Council) • Councillors K. Loftus, A. Lowe & D. Thompson (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor J. Lowe (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor S. Nelson (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor N. Plumpton Walsh (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor P. Sinnott (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor J. Stockton (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor L. Trevaskis (Hale Parish Council)

Local Organisations

• Friends of Halton Village • Hale Guildswomen Committee • Hale Village Hall

34

Parish and Town Councils

• Hale Parish Council • Halebank Parish Council • Moore Parish Council • Preston Brook Parish Council

Local Residents

• 149 local residents

Petitions

• Hale Parish Council

Further draft recommendations: Submissions received

Local Authority

• Halton Borough Council

Political Groups

• Runcorn Central Branch Labour Party (4 submissions)

Councillors

• Councillors J. & M. Bradshaw (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor C. Carlin (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor E. Cargill (Halton Borough Council) (2 submissions) • Councillor R. Hignett (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor H. Howard (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor P. Lloyd Jones (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor G. Logan (Halton Borough Council) • Councillor L. Trevaskis (Hale Parish Council)

Local Organisations

• Friends of Halton Village

Parish and Town Councils

• Preston Brook Parish Council 35

Local Residents

• 70 local residents

Petitions

• Preston Brook Parish Council

36

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

37

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

38

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 conducting boundary, electoral and Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE