sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alvanley, Anderton with Marbury, Comberbach, Kelsall, Little Budworth, Little Leigh

Parish and town council submissions to the West and electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from and town councils.

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

Anderton with Marbury is a small rural parish. We share a Clerk with and have regular contacts with and . We wish to remain in Marbury ward.

As originally many of the properties and also land in Anderton , Marbury, Comberbach and Great Budworth were part of the Marbury Estate also the Hall (demolished ) This land now being Marbury Country Park.

The earliest records show that Ranulph de Merebirie was Lord of Marbury at the time of King John (1199-1216 ) With such a long and eminent history it is imperative that Ward of Marbury remains within its present boundary.

Ann Brazier

Clerk Anderton with Marbury

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Jane Colville on behalf of [email protected] Sent: 05 June 2017 17:39 To: reviews Subject: Response from AshtonHayes and Horton cum Peel Parish Coucil to the Boundary Commision review of Cheshire West and Chester ward areas

The Parish Council discussed this matter at its last meeting and wishes to make the following views known and considered in the review. We appreciate that a view has been taken that it would be appropriate to consider and reduction in the number of councillors by 6 [from 75 to 69] and in order to achieve this there will need to be some element of merging and realignment. We accept this but there are some configurations which to us make more sense than others. We currently are a ward made up of rural communities which are spread over a geographically large area but one which has relatively small population numbers. There is much in common between those that currently are within Gowy ward . This includes the large areas of green belt that exist ,the proximity to and importance of , the local wildlife and the environment and farming together with rural policing and a shared issue and significant concern in having very poor public transport services .To us it would seem completely sensible to retain that identity and interest but at the same time increase the size of the ward by adding on some additional small communities that currently are outside that ward but which share the same features and priorities. This could include Delamere for example. If Gowy ward were to be broken up and parts subsumed within larger metropolitan areas such as the detrimental effects on the rural way of life, priorities and structures would not be acceptable to us or our residents as our views and needs would be lost within the much larger urban areas. We would strongly prefer that we remain part of a ward comprised of rural areas as opposed to the alternative possibilities. Any approach which saw us added onto one of the bigger rural local communities, which are now dubbed service centres, such as and would be also considered highly detrimental. We realise that both are geographically close to and Horton cum Peel but they are very different communities with understandably different issues and priorities. We feel that the interests of the smaller communities would be dwarfed in such an arrangement by the larger community.

We thank you for having given us the opportunity to express our views in respect of this matter.

Jane Colville Chairman of Ashton Hayes and Horton cum Peel Parish Council

Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Phlip Pownall Sent: 08 June 2017 15:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Electoral Review ofCheshire West and Chester Warding Arrangements(re sent after failed delivery)

Dear Sirs

I write as Clerk to Lea by Parish Council to express the views of the council to the above review. Having held an extra PC meeting following consultation with neighbouring interested parties it was the unanimous decision of Lea by Backford Parish Council that the current Ward structure enjoyed by the council should remain as it is.

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

Philip Pownall

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Susan Thwaite Sent: 08 May 2017 13:23 To: reviews Cc: Stuart (Councillor) PARKER Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CWAC - WARDING ARRANGEMENTS

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs

I have been requested to submit the following recommendations from Parish Council in response to the Local Government Commission for ’s electoral review of CWAC.

It is the recommendation of Christleton Parish Council that the number of Councillors representing the Chester Villages Ward remains at its current level of TWO following the review.

Please pass this recommendation on to the Boundary Commission.

Thank you

Yours faithfully

Sue Thwaite Clerk – Christleton Parish Council Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Parish Clerk Sent: 03 June 2017 11:57 To: reviews Cc: John Ryder Subject: Electoral Review of Cheshire West and Chester

Hello

I refer to the electoral review of Cheshire West and Chester. I am clerk to Comberbach Parish Council which is a village in the area. This review has been considered by our Parish Council and the views are set out below:

Comberbach Parish Council strongly supports the status quo i.e. to remaining in the Ward of Marbury within current specified boundaries, including retaining three councillors for the following reasons:

‐ All nine rural villages are neatly located in the Parliamentary Constituency of Tatton

‐ Comberbach shares the facilities ‐ along with the other eight villages ‐ of Oakwood Medical Centre located in the neighbouring village of Barnton.

‐ It has links with the ecclesiastical boundaries and shares ministers.

‐ It lies within the natural boundary of the and is marked by the A533, A49 and A556.

‐ Members note that Cheshire West and Chester Council undertook a review of parish boundaries in 2009 resulting in removing Lostock from the Marbury Ward which decreased electorate numbers as it was thought to be too big for three councillors. If Lostock were to be reinstated electorate numbers would meet proposed requirements and the need for three councillors.

‐ We support retaining Marbury as the ward name.

Kind regards Denise French Clerk to Comberbach Parish Council

1 DELAMERE AND PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk to Delamere and Oakmere Parish Council Mrs. J Monks

Telephone Email

Date: 23rd May 2017 The Review Officer (Cheshire West and Chester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir,

Electoral Review of Cheshire West and Chester

Delamere and Oakmere Parish Council considered the above at its Parish Council meeting on Monday 15th May 2017.

The Parish Council would like two-member ward to continue and would like to be continue to be in the same ward as Kelsall and Willington, and if possible join and Kingsley.

I hope you can consider these comments.

If you wish to discuss any aspect of this, please contact me.

Yours faithfully

Mrs. J Monks Clerk to Delamere and Oakmere Parish Council

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: K HINKLEY Sent: 03 May 2017 06:44 To: reviews Subject: BOUNDARY CHANGES

Dear Sirs

At their meeting on 2nd May 2017 the Dunham Hill & Parish Council passed the following resolution on the above subject, and I forward their views.

Yours faithfully

K C Hinkley CLERK

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Caroline Marshall Sent: 05 June 2017 11:12 To: reviews Cc: Hilary Brudenell; Lynn Gibbon; HAMMOND, Don (Councillor) Subject: Local Government Boundary Review - Warding Patterns Consultation Stage

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Cheshire West and Chester Local Boundary Review – Marbury Ward

I am writing to you on behalf of Great Budworth Parish Council.

The Parish Council would like to express their concern and objection to the proposed changes to the Marbury Ward located in Cheshire West and Chester.

All of the parishes within this ward are part of the Tatton Parliamentary boundary and to makes changes to this seems unnecessary. The location of medical centres, churches, rivers and roads already provide clear boundaries within the ward.

The current arrangement of 3 District Councillors in the Marbury ward has proved to be a successful one and the reduction of this number to 2 as well as the proposal to reduce the size of the wards we feel would be detrimental. The parishes of Great Budworth and Antrobus are part of the same ecclesiastical parish and have strong links for example, a shared parish priest and formally linked schools working together collaboratively.

Additionally, the very name of the ward has historical meaning and changing this would be we feel short sighted.

We trust that you take our concerns into consideration when reaching your decision.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Marshall

1 Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer for Great Budworth Parish Council

Tel:

2 21st January 2010.

Ms Jessica Metheringham – Review Officer The Boundary Committee Trevelyan House Great Peter Street LONDON SW1P 2HW

Dear Jessica,

Electoral Review of Cheshire West and Chester: draft recommendations

Thank you for your letter dated 10th Nov inviting comments on the above.

Helsby Parish Council has noted that the Boundary Committee has recommended a 3 Member Ward for and but would like the Boundary Committee to re-consider its proposal for a 1 Member Ward for Helsby and has put forward further evidence to convey the strength of members’ feelings as follows:-

1) With the proposal for 3 Frodsham & Helsby Councillors, it is very likely that all 3 will come from Frodsham as Frodsham is twice the size of Helsby and so allegiance may well be more towards issues and expenditure (through their allowances) that will assist Frodsham at the expense of Helsby. One Helsby Councillor means that the person has no split allegiances and can be held properly accountable by Helsby residents. 2) At the recent planning appeal relating to the Horse & Jockey Site in Helsby, even the Planning Inspector recognised that there was a very distinct difference between Frodsham and Helsby and that was one of the reasons used to turn down the appeal as it would tend to allow merger of the two areas which are separated by a large swathe of open greenbelt land. 3) To our knowledge, we have no projects or instances when Helsby and Frodsham Councils have worked together as one, even the Peel Holdings Incinerator enquiry (plans now passed for Incinerator that will affect both Helsby and Frodsham residents) proved very difficult to get any support or action from Frodsham. We have asked them about such things as sharing their plant watering (hanging baskets and tubs) and cemetery burial plots in recent times only to be turned away. 4) We can see that the 3 Councillor recommendation fits nicely as far as Party Politics are concerned, as it is likely to return 3 Councillors all from the same Party. Good for the Party but not good for democracy or the people of Helsby. 5) Helsby is a Quality Parish Council (having first gained status in Feb 2005 and re-accredited in Feb 2009) and therefore merit our stand alone status. Frodsham Town Council is not a Quality Council. 6) Helsby meets the Boundary Committee qualification criteria for being a single Councillor Ward. 7) Helsby is looking for more accountability from one Councillor rather than having three across a larger area. 8) Helsby Parish Council has no consistency. When one existing Ward Councillor attends a Parish Council meeting, then do not attend for a few months, another one turns up and we have to go over the same ground / arguments. 9) Since the new authority took over in April 2009, Helsby Parish Council has had 10 full council meetings. Out of the 10 meetings, 4 were not attended by any of the 3 existing Ward Councillors and the remaining 6 meetings were only attended by one of the three. It must be acknowledged that apologies were given for the 4 meetings that none of them attended.

In the Council’s opinion, the importance of attending Parish Council meeting to keep abreast of residents concerns and expectations and Parish Council business, seems to fall by the wayside in favour of other meetings organised elsewhere. If Helsby had its own Ward Councillor, we feel sure that he/she would be more focused on Helsby happenings.

To this end, we submit the above for consideration of a 1 Ward Member Councillor for Helsby.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Jeanette Hughes (Mrs) Helsby Parish Clerk E-mail: Website : www.helsbyparish.org.uk

28th May 2017

Mr Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer (Cheshire West and Chester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir

Electoral Review of Cheshire West and Chester - Consultation requesting proposals

Helsby Parish Council has noted that the Boundary Commission and Cheshire West and Chester (CWAC) has opened a consultation inviting proposals for a new pattern of wards for CWAC and that the Commission is recommending 69 CWAC Councillors in future. CWAC Cllr Lynn Riley spoke during public airtime of Helsby Parish Council meeting held 8th May 2017 to inform the Parish Council that the local Conservative Party would be proposing a 3-member ward for Frodsham and Helsby and asked for the support of Helsby Parish Council.

The Parish Council discussed Cllr Riley’s proposal and agreed that we did not wish to return to being a 3-member ward, for the same reasons described in our letter to the Boundary Commission dated 21st Jan 2010 requesting a 1 member ward (copy attached). Please note that Helsby Parish Council is not party-political and matters affecting the village are debated and decided completely on their own merits.

The reasons in the attached letter are still relevant and we would also like to make the following points:

1) CWAC Local Plan defined Helsby as a “key service centre” with a number of facilities that give the ward its own identity and enable it to function independently. For example, Helsby has its own primary schools, Community Centre, library, Post Office, supermarket, pharmacy, dentists, undertakers, churches, sports centre, play areas, cemetery and allotments. 2) Socially, Helsby has a distinct identity, focussed around the Community Centre where a large number of village clubs/societies meet and also the Community Sports Club which hosts Helsby teams for running, rugby, football and other sports. The village also has its own newsletter and a volunteer group which organises a big Christmas community event, “Ho Ho Helsby”. 3) Although some Helsby facilities serve a wider community area, there is no consistent link to a particular neighbouring area. Helsby High School is located near the boundary with Frodsham but has a wider catchment area than just Frodsham and Helsby. Helsby has a group GP practice with Elton and also uses specialist health services such as physiotherapy provided by Princeway Medical Centre in Frodsham. 4) In contrast to wards adjoining Helsby, the village has a Neighbourhood Plan (made in 2016). The Plan started by considering the Neighbourhood Area and adjoining parishes, including Frodsham, and Dunham on the Hill, were approached with a view to the Plan having a fractionally larger area than Helsby Parish Council boundary. The suggestions were refused, indicating all surrounding wards consider the existing Helsby Parish/Ward boundary is suitable to define the local community. The status of the ward boundaries for Helsby were also considered during CWAC Community Governance Review in 2013 of parished and unparished areas and no changes were needed. 5) Geographically, there is a natural break between Helsby and Frodsham, currently protected by Green Belt designation, to preserve the identity of both settlements. Preservation of the Green Belt was a major point in community feedback obtained during development of the Helsby Neighbourhood Plan. 6) The railway line and M53, together with very limited public transport, has led to a clear distinction between the communities of Elton and Helsby. Elton’s associations for work and leisure tend towards the nearby westward industrial developments of Thornton Science Park/Stanlow site and , rather than Helsby where many residents commute to jobs using the M53 and railway links. Alvanley is close to Helsby in terms of residential properties but the widespread and rural nature of Gowy ward as a whole means it has little in common with Helsby, a key services centre.

Helsby Parish Council is aware of the need for this review to achieve electoral equality and notes that Helsby as a single-member ward has acceptable variance in both 2016 and in 2023 (6% and 7%, respectively). We also note that Frodsham (as a 2-member ward) has acceptable variance but that there is wider variance for Elton and Gowy wards (both single-member wards). We acknowledge that combining Helsby ward with either Frodsham, Elton or Gowy wards would slightly improve variances and that Frodsham and Helsby have been a joint ward in the past. However, given the identities and differences between the local communities as described above, we consider a more appropriate arrangement to address the high variance for Elton would be a joint 3-member ward with Ellesmere Port Town, which would also resolve the high variance for Ellesmere Port Town. The high variance for Gowy could be addressed by combining with Tarvin and Kelsall (a similarly widespread, predominantly rural ward) to give a 3-member ward. However, none of the above suggestions would result in any overall reduction in the number of CWAC Councillors. There may also be opportunities to consider reallocation of the parished areas within Chester Villages ward and unparished areas within/around Ellesmere Port to improve the high ward variances for Gowy, Elton and Chester Villages. The attached Appendix shows calculations for the wards mentioned.

In summary, as described above, combining Helsby ward with one of its neighbours does not align with the interests and identities of the local communities, would not enhance local government and does not lead to any reduction in the overall number of CWAC Cllrs. The projected slight under- representation of Helsby in 2023 that is reflected in the variance of 7% is considered to be less damaging to the overall interests of the village than being forced to become a joint ward with multi-member representation.

Yours sincerely,

Jeanette E Hughes Helsby Parish Clerk

Enc.

Email Phone: Mobile:

Appendix

Check your data 2016 2023 Number of councillors: 69 69 Overall electorate: 264,815 281,890 Average electorate per cllr: 3,838 4,085

Scroll left to see the first table

Fill in the number These cells will show you the electorate and variance. They change depending Fill in the name of each ward once of councillors per what you enter in the table to the left. ward

Number of Electorate Electorate Name of ward Variance 2016 Variance 2023 cllrs per ward 2016 2023

Chester Villages 2 6,958 -9% 7,005 -14% Ellesmere Port Town 2 6,819 -11% 7,642 -6% Elton 1 3,545 -8% 3,523 -14% Frodsham 2 7,429 -3% 7,495 -8% Gowy 1 3,319 -14% 3,359 -18% Helsby 1 4,078 6% 4,381 7% Tarvin and Kelsall 2 7,193 -6% 7,915 -3%

-100% -100% Helsby with Frodsham 3 11,507 0% 11,876 -3% Helsby with Elton 2 7,623 -1% 7,904 -3% Helsby with Gowy 2 7,397 -4% 7,740 -5% Elton with Ellesmere Port Town 3 10,364 -10% 11,165 -9% Gowy with Tarvin and Kelsall 3 10,512 -9% 11,274 -8% 0 -100% 0 -100%

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Parish Council Sent: 03 June 2017 00:24 To: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan; reviews; Buck, Richard Cc: Subject: Little Budworth Parish Council's response to the Local Government Boundary Commissions review of the Ward boundary in Cheshire West and Chester Council.

Little Budworth Parish Council's response to the Local Government Boundary Commissions review of the Tarporley Ward boundary in Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC).

Dear Mr Carlsson‐Hyslop,

The Little Budworth Parish Council is writing in opposition to the proposed move of Little Budworth from the Tarporley Ward to combine with Over (Winsford) and Whitegate. The following points detail why this proposal, to move Wards, is not appropriate but also provides some alternative suggestions. The Parish Council has also addressed the proposal to reduce the number of CWAC Councillors from 75 to 69.

Reasons why moving Little Budworth from the Tarporley Ward to a Ward combined with Over (Winsford) and Whitegate is not a viable option:

 Little Budworth needs to remain within a Ward that reflects the experiences of rural communities and must be represented by a Councillor who understands these needs are very different from urban areas like Over, Winsford. As a Ward Councillor is supposed to: o Represent the Ward’s interests by providing a voice for all sectors of the community o Be a community champion, providing leadership o Be visible and recognisable within the community o Represent the individual constituents and local organisations, undertaking case work if required o Encourage community participation in council decision making o Make decisions and oversee council performance o Represent the council on local, regional and national bodies and partnerships. It is essential that Little Budworth’s Ward Councillor continues to represent similar communities and has experience of the issues without rural/urban conflicting views.  Little Budworth has very similar needs to the other rural communities of Eaton and Rushton and and Cotebrook within the Tarporley Ward. The Parish Councils for all of these communities deal with similar issues such as speeding traffic on narrow lanes and the lack of public transport. These matters are different from problems experienced in urban areas like Over, Winsford. Therefore, Little Budworth needs to remain combined with the other rural communities, that are dealing with similar issues, in the Tarporley Ward. This reduces the workload and associated time for the Ward Councillor and helps provide an effective and convenient local government for all the residents.  The parishes of the local communities in the Tarporley Ward have regular inter‐parish meetings to discuss the issues being experienced and how they have been dealt with. This important interaction would be lost if Little Budworth were not to remain in the Tarporley Ward.

1  Tarporley provides the main services for the residents of Little Budworth. These include doctor's surgeries, the Tarporley Hospital, the pharmacy, two opticians, a petrol station, an MOT centre/garage, a vet, a fire station, a dentist and the local, public library based in . The area of Over, Winsford does not have these facilities.  Eaton, one of the neighbouring villages to Little Budworth, provides numerous opportunities for local residents to interact at the Jessie Hughes village hall (named after the wife of the Rector of Tarporley). These activities include art groups, gardening clubs, film nights (Flicks in the Sticks) and exercise classes, amongst others. This provides both friendship and support for local residents in all the rural communities within the Tarporley Ward. This is especially important with the reduction of facilities such as social and support services. Once again, these opportunities are not provided anywhere in Over, Winsford.  The children and young people of Little Budworth all attend schools within the catchment area of the Tarporley Ward (Eaton Primary School, Tarporley CE Primary School, Tarporley High School). The schools have transport specifically organised to collect the children of Little Budworth. The very young children of Little Budworth also attend the playgroup in Cotebrook. Over cannot provide these schooling options and Little Budworth is not within any catchment areas for schools in the wider Winsford area.  Little Budworth Neighbourhood Watch is linked to the Tarporley area and includes Tarporley, Eaton and Rushton and Utkinton and Cotebrook. We share the same local police officer, Philip Monks, who understands the types of crime rural areas experience. It is important that these small communities can continue to work closely within the same Ward to prevent crime. This example again reflects how closely the interests and identities of Little Budworth and the other rural communities in the Tarporley Ward are aligned.  The postal addresses of all properties in Little Budworth include Tarporley in the address and a Tarporley postcode.  All post for residents of Little Budworth is organised at the Tarporley sorting office and not Over, which does not have a sorting office.  The boundary of the Tarporley Ward currently mirrors exactly the Little Budworth parish boundary to the north of the village. This is an identifiable border and represents the extent of the community. It also provides the building blocks and electoral divisions for the north of the Tarporley Ward and is another example of how the boundaries of the parish and the Tarporley Ward, around Little Budworth, are clearly identifiable.  The Little Budworth Parish Council is very active and performs roles such as assessing planning applications. Therefore, the Ward Councillor’s workload is reduced because the Parish Council takes on some of the required roles. This in turns means although the Tarporley Ward, as it currently stands, may be above the electorate variance required this does not reflect the overall workload of the Ward Councillor.  The Little Budworth Parish Council understands that the proposal to move Little Budworth from the Tarporley Ward to combine with Over, Winsford and Whitegate is based on the electorate numbers of the Wards. Tarporley has undergone great change in terms of the number of new build houses over the last couple of years. However, Over continues to experience a similar expansion and therefore the current population figures are not a true reflection of the increasing numbers in Over. In line with the reviews criteria, it is necessary to consider how these developments might affect the number of electorates in each Ward over the next 5 years, from the end of the review.  The electoral review states ‘We also aim to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of local communities as well as promoting effective local government’ and therefore it is essential that Little Budworth remains part of the Tarporley Ward where these aims can be effectively met.

Alternatives to the proposed Ward change

2  Little Budworth Parish Council has the below suggested alternatives to Little Budworth moving Wards: o The Tarporley Ward could have 2 councillors as some of the other Wards currently do. As Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) holds whole‐council elections every 4 years this alternative would still meet the statuary criteria. It would also promote an effective and convenient local government. o The Tarporley Ward could remain exactly as it is. If reducing the total number of CWAC Councillors by 6, is required, then the number of Wards will also need to reduce meaning the electorate number for each will need to increase. As the electorate number for Tarporley is already higher than other Wards it will be in line with these changes.

Reducing the number of Ward Councillors  The Parish Council agrees with both the comments from The Conservative Group submission and those of Councillor Jones, in response to the consultation, that the changes driven by the current periods of reduction in spend and services require increased oversight and scrutiny from Councillors. This may be slightly counter balanced by the reduction in the number of committee meetings etc. that each Councillor is expected to attend. However, if the number of CWAC Councillors is cut down, as proposed in this review, each individual Councillor’s workload will once again significantly increase. This seems to be at odds with the aim of the review, which is to manage the workload of each CWAC Councillor and ensure they are not overburdened.  The Parish Council is uncertain why if the proposal is to reduce the number of CWAC Councillors, and therefore presumably number of Wards, the review has proposed a new Ward combining Little Budworth, Over and Whitegate. Perhaps the Boundaries Commission review could provide more clarity around this point?

The Little Budworth Parish Council trusts the review committee will carefully consider all the points raised above and agree that Little Budworth should remain within the Tarporley Ward.

Yours sincerely The Chair and all committee members/councillors of Little Budworth Parish Council

Little Budworth Parish Council

3 WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW LITTLE LEIGH PARISH COUNCIL

1. Little Leigh Parish is a diverse rural community of 6.4 square kilometres with a population of approximately 550 occupying some 260 dwellings within the North Cheshire green belt. It is located to the north of the River Weaver, four miles from and is bisected by the A533 Road. It is bounded by the A49 Road to the west, extending eastwards to Barnton and the parish of Whitley to the north. The A49 is regarded by some as the western boundary for the parish and ward.

2. Little Leigh has a village centre south of Runcorn Road which includes St Michael and All Angels Church, the Village Hall, the Primary School and a housing estate. The parish comprises a substantial area of farmland and incorporates scattered farms and cottages with several clusters of ribbon development with a variety of different styles and materials.

3. It has a number of farms, livery yards, pubs and small businesses distributed about the parish.

4. Our church is linked with Whitley in that we are within the same church parish.

5. We have no transport links but all our services, GP, pharmacy, shops etc are provided by the neighbouring parish of Barnton.

6. Several pupils at Little Leigh school live in Barnton.

7. It is likely that the existing Marbury Ward, including Little Leigh, will be moved en bloc from the current Tatton Parliamentary Constituency within the next two years as part of the (separate) revision of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries – and so it would seem appropriate to keep Marbury Ward intact for the purposes of local government, too.

8. We are currently in Marbury ward and see no reason for this situation to change. Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Dave Taylor Sent: 09 June 2017 09:41 To: reviews Subject: Review of Electoral Arrangements in Chester

Dear Sirs

At their recent Meeting Littleton Parish Council (Chester) discussed the Review and resolved as follows:-

That the Boundary Commission be urged most strongly to desist from reducing representation in rural areas such as Littleton

D Taylor Clerk to Littleton PC

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 29 May 2017 11:54 To: reviews Cc: Lynn Gibbon; Don Hammond Subject: Electoral review of Cheshire west and Chester: Warding arrangements

I write on behalf of Marston Parish Council in response to the review.

Marston Parish Council want to stay in the Marbury Ward. We have many things in common with the other councils in this ward. We share natural boundarys i.e. The rivers and roads.

We do not want to loose our rural identity which would happen if we joined neighbouring towns.

Marston is in the Parish of Great Budworth Church, the vicar at Great Budworth of our Vicar and children in Marston go to Great Budworth primary school as well as Comberbach and Antrobus.

We are in the constituency of Tatton and share the same member of parliament.

Please take these views into consideration.

Regards,

Liz Massey Clerk to Marston Parish Council

Sent from my iPad

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Geraint Jones Sent: 11 May 2017 08:05 To: reviews; ; Peter Willis (Box-It North West); holger paesler; Martin Garnett Subject: BOUNDARY CHANGES : GOWY WARD

Gowy Ward is part of Cheshire West and Cheshire Borough Council. The Ward is comprised of 6 rural Green Belt communities of Alvanley, Manley, , Ashton Hayes with Horton Cum Peel, Dunham Hill and Hapsford, and Barrow.

When the Boundary Commission is looking to enlarge the Ward, Mouldsworth Parish Council requests that serious consideration is given to only adding Green Belt Rural villages to the Ward. Tarvin, Kelsall and Helsby which are close to us are not Green Belt and are development areas; as such, they do not share similar concerns. Elton and Chester are much larger communities which do not bear any resemblance to us. The suggestion of Mouldsworth Parish Council, on behalf our community, is that a part of Kingsley and Norley Ward is added to Gowy....if indeed changes be deemed necessary at all.....

In the meantime, we would ask that it be noted that in the time which has elasped since the last boundary changes, there has been some enlargement to housing numbers, hence our overriding request is that, if at all possible, Gowy Ward should remain as it is at present, and not be changed in any way.

Regards,

Geraint Jones Mob no

Chairman, Mouldsworth Parish Council

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Alison J Kunaj Sent: 17 May 2017 16:40 To: reviews Subject: Re: Local Government Boundary Commission Consultation Attachments: 17 05 16 LGBReview approved.pdf

Importance: High

Dear Boundary Commission,

I attach the whole response approved at the Council meeting last night.

Unfortunately I am unable to take off the word ‘draft’ as I only have this document in a pdf format.

The Council wish to reiterate that their preference (on page 3) was option ‘B’

Can you confirm receipt of this response and that I have submitted this to the correct department for consideration.

Many thanks

Kind regards Alison Kunaj Council Manager Town Council Tel:

Follow us on Twitter: @NestonTC

************************************************************************ Note: This E-Mail is intended for the addressee only and may include confidential information.

Unauthorised recipients are requested to please advise the sender immediately by telephone and then delete the message without copying or storing it or disclosing its contents to any other person.

We have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that no viruses are transmitted from the Council to any third party. Copyright in this e-mail and attachments created by us unless stated to the contrary belongs to the Council.

Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any party acting, or refraining from acting on any information contained in this e mail is hereby excluded.

Should you communicate with anyone at the Council by e-mail, you consent to us monitoring and reading any such correspondence. All correspondence to and from this office is in the public domain.

Printing this email? Please think environmentally and only print when essential! ************************************************************************

1 Meeting (No) Annual Meeting of Council (1) Date 16 May 2017 Document Ref No Draft Response to LGBCE Consultation FC1/27 on CWaC Ward Sizes

Background Following an application from Cheshire West & Chester Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for a review of the electoral arrangements in the borough, it has been agreed that the number of councillors for the authority should be reduced from 75 to 69. In order for this to be implemented, and to accommodate population changes, all existing ward boundaries must be reviewed with the aim of achieving an average electorate per councillor (on 2016 figures) of 3,838 rising to 4085 on projected 2023 figures. The changes will be implemented at the 2019 council election and will still be in force for the 2023 election. The Commission is now consulting on where the ward boundaries should be. Although the Commission favours single member wards, there are circumstances in which two- or three-member wards with two or three times the average electorate) will be allowed, as is the case now. At its meeting in February the Council appointed a Task and Finish Group of Cllrs Griffiths, Roberts and Shipman to draft a response to the Consultation for consideration by Council. In doing so, the T&F Group made a detailed study of the current ward boundaries for the town (defined throughout this paper as the Town Council area), the data supplied in relation to average ward sizes and current distribution, and of the Commission’s very extensive guidelines. A summary of these guidelines is attached as an appendix. It is essential that Members read these before attempting to suggest amendments to the Group’s draft response. To meet the criteria established by the Commission it is not possible to maintain any of the current ward boundaries in the town which currently has 3.75 councillors (25% of the electorate of Little Neston & ward lives outside the town). The consultation ends on 5 June 2017. Draft submission This submission concerns the warding arrangements for the town of Neston. The Town Council does not wish to comment on those for other parts of the borough. The Council believes that the town (ie the area which is coterminous with the , and consisting of the current Polling Districts of LE2, LE3, LE4, LE5, LF1, LH1 and LH2) fulfils the Commission’s criteria to be considered a separate electoral entity. Neston is a long-established town with a population of over 15,000 within an otherwise rural setting at the northern extremity of Cheshire West and Chester. As late as 200 years ago it was the largest town in the Wirral Peninsula. It has a history of self-government. Neston-cum- Parkgate Urban District Council was established in September 1894 with a boundary not dissimilar to that of the current Town Council. This was expanded to form Neston UDC in 1934 (until 1974) including the villages of Burton to the south and Willaston to the east.

LGBReview In 2009 Neston Town Council was established as a result of a petition from over 20% of the electorate, endorsed in a subsequent referendum organised by the Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council by a 58.5% vote in favour. There exists, then, a firm basis for reinforcing the notion of the town of Neston as a democratic entity within the Cheshire West & Chester Council structure. Neston has clearly defined political and geographical boundaries. To the north and north-east its boundary is coterminous with that of the borough council; to the west its boundary is the River Dee; to the south and south-east it is constrained by designated green belt. Opportunities for medium- and large-scale residential development are limited, a fact recognised in the Neston Neighbourhood Plan made in 2016 and recognised in the estimated net increase in electoral size of the four wards in which parts of the town are currently located: 59. Culturally all parts of the town share the same Town Hall, Civic Hall, Library, Recreation Centre, High School, and there are numerous voluntary groups and societies using “Neston” as part of their name (a full list may be found at https://neston.org.uk/local-organisations/). All parts of the town use the centrally located railway station, supermarkets and high street shops, and nearly all sections of the town are served by a bus route into the town centre. This evidence, together with other factors determined by the Commission, suggests two options for warding arrangements: a single ward with three Members, or three single-member wards. It is recognised that all of the current wards fall short of the “target” electorate per member and that there must be change

Variance Projected Variance Polling from elector from Current Ward Dist Electorate "targ ate "targ Town Council (number of Members) rict 2016 et" 2023 et" ward size size of of 3838 4085 Little Neston & Burton LE2 734 744 Ness (2) LE3 2812 2816 Riverside LE4 1665 1651 Little Neston LE5 949 -7% 956 -13% Neston (1) LF1 3224 -16% 3212 -21% Neston Parkgate (1) LH1 1476 1466 Parkgate LH2 1714 -17% 1788 -20%

A single three-member ward would result in acceptable variances from the average electorate size per member: Variance Projected Variance Polling from elector from Ward Dist Electorate "targ ate "targ (number of Members) ricts 2016 et" 2023 et" size size

of of 3838 4085 Neston (3) LE2- 12,547 8% 12,633 3% LH2

Anecdotal evidence suggests that in the one ward of the town served by 2 Members there is some confusion amongst some electors as to who “their” councillor is, and whether one should be approached with a case or the other.

Page 2 of 5 There is a strong belief amongst Members of Neston Town Council, which because of its nature and size must operate on a multi-member ward basis, that at a Principal Authority level mult- Member wards reduce member accountability with the electorate. Members conducted an unstructured poll of their electors, asking for responses to the following question: Would you prefer to be represented on Cheshire West Council by A a number of different councillors (say, 3) representing everyone in the town all together, or B one councillor representing people in the part of Neston in which you live, with other councillors representing other parts of the town? There would be the same number of councillors overall representing Neston people. There was a very clear 76% preference for option B (56 with 18 for A). Although Neston as a town comprises a number of historically separate settlements the names of which are reflected in those given by Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council to the Town Council wards, to postal addresses and to which many residents adhere, these have now coalesced into the one town. Furthermore, in some cases the boundaries of the wards, for both Borough and Town Councils, stretch some distance from the original settlements in order to be viable. The principle, therefore, of attaching historical (and new) names to Wards extending beyond their “natural” centres is well established. It is not possible to provide a separate ward identity to each individual settlement: Ness, Ness Holt, Little Neston, Hinderton, Neston Magna, Parkgate, Leighton. Thus the Town Council’s proposals for three separate wards must perforce have some boundaries which are somewhat arbitrary. We note the Commission’s preference for ward names which avoid causing confusion amongst local electors, that are short rather than those which attempt to describe an area exhaustively, and are distinct and easily identifiable. We also note the preference for ward boundaries which normally provide for people to move between all parts of the ward without having to venture outside of the ward. The Council therefore proposes these three single-member wards: Neston West Alternative name: Parkgate – Riverside Boundaries: River Dee, borough boundary with Wirral Borough to a point 200 metres north of Backwood Farm, a line south eastwards to the centre of Leighton Road just north of its junction with Turners View, southwards down the centre of Leighton Road and Park Street, southwards down Mill Lane to follow the boundary of the present Parkgate Ward to its junction with the present Riverside Town Ward, and continuing southwards along the boundary of Riverside Town Ward (railway line) as far as, but not including, Marshlands Road and extending to the end of Riverside Walk and the rear of Sandon Crescent to the River Dee. Electorate 2016 4117 with a variance of 7.27% from the average of 3838 2023 4183 with a variance of 2.40% from the average of 4085 Neston South Alternative name: Little Neston Boundaries: River Dee, southern boundary of new Neston West Ward, railway line northwards to southern corner of Cottage Close, eastwards between Cottage Close and Windermere Close, south of

Page 3 of 5 Morland Avenue to the centre of Mellock Lane, northwards to Wirral Way, Wirral Way to A540, centre of A540 to existing Town Council boundary, existing Town Council boundary to River Dee. Electorate 2016 4117 with a variance of 8.49% from the average of 3838 2023 4156 with a variance of 1.74% from the average of 4085 Neston North Alternative name: Neston Boundaries: To the north and north-west the boundary with Wirral Borough southwards to the junction of Bluebell Lane and Quarry Road, eastwards to the rear of properties on the southern side of Quarry Road, southwards on the east side of A540 to the boundary with Neston South Ward, westwards to the boundary with Neston West Ward, northwards to the borough boundary. 2016 4216 with a variance of 9.85% from the average of 3838 2023 4210 with a variance of 3.06% from the average of 4085 Remainder Chester High Road CH64 8TD, Hanns Hall Road have a greater affinity with Willaston village and should sit more easily in the current Willaston & Thornton Ward.

Page 4 of 5 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Summary of technical guidance on Ward/division patterns Electoral equality When formulating recommendations, the Commission will be seeking to achieve ratios as close to the authority average in every ward or division. The further that electoral equality departs from the average for the authority, the stronger the evidence of the other statutory considerations they take into account will need to be. Community identity The Commission suggest a number of factors as relevant to determining community identity:  the location of public facilities such as doctors’ surgeries, hospitals, libraries or schools,  an area’s history and tradition ,  major roads if they are the location of shops or community facilities which people visit regularly and where they interact,  where there are recorded community interactions and collective engagements with the principal local authority for the area. The existence, and activities of, town and parish councils, residents’ associations, and local voluntary organisations will, for example, be sources of evidence on this. Effective and convenient local government A practical example of effective and convenient local government for the Commission when considering proposed warding arrangements is to ensure that wards are internally coherent. That is to say, that there are reasonable road links across the ward so that it can be easily traversed, and that all electors in the ward can engage in the affairs and activities of all parts of it without having to travel through an adjoining ward. Number of councillors in each ward or division Some contributors to past reviews of local authorities that hold whole-council elections have argued that multi-member wards provide, in principle and practice, greater effectiveness and convenience than do single-member wards. Others have argued the reverse. The Commission’s consideration of this issue will be aided by evidence of benefits to electors, not benefits to local political organisations, as well as being firmly based on our statutory criteria, when proposals which are based either on a preference for single- or multi-member wards are presented. Ward/division names In determining names for wards and divisions, the Commission aims to avoid causing confusion amongst local electors and ensures that names are distinct and easily identifiable. the Commission may adopt compass point names when there is not a more suitable name. These are generally more applicable in larger urban and suburban settlements. In this case the compass point reference used will generally form a suffix where the rest of the name refers to a population centre, for example Buckingham East. Compass points will normally be used only where they are relative to another compass point (ie Buckingham West should only be used where a Buckingham East has also been proposed). The Commission’s preference is for names that are short rather than those which attempt to describe an area exhaustively. The Commission’s recommendations for ward boundaries will normally provide for people to move between all parts of the ward without having to venture outside of the ward Current and forecast electorate The Commission will endeavour to improve electoral equality at the next election, however we cannot dispense with the need for forecasts since we are required to have regard to them.

Page 5 of 5

Whitegate and Marton is a small rural Parish between Winsford and Northwich in Cheshire West and Chester.

After discussion regarding the proposed changes to warding arrangements in Cheshire West and Chester, the Parish Council is submitting the following statement.

Whitegate and Marton Parish is currently in the three member ward of Winsford, Over and Verdin.

It is our opinion that if the review goes ahead as proposed there will be a lesser number of councillors and we are mindful that given the current workload of councillors any changes that reduce the number across the borough would be detrimental. Workload will increase and as a result diversity may be reduced when trying to attract new candidates to stand for election.

Staff reductions at Cheshire West and Chester combined with increasing population numbers will inevitably mean that the role of the elected members will become increasingly important in dealing with local issues, including some of a complex nature including safeguarding and social care.

Whitegate and Marton Parish Council is currently part of a 3 member ward has a close working relationship with one elected member. He is seen as a key point of contact for residents, regularly engages with members of the community and pursues enquiries on their behalf. The other 2 elected members are more involved with Winsford town and not directly involved with our local issues. To reduce this ward from 3 to 2 elected members we believe would be detrimental to this rural area. Our residents already face challenges in cuts to transport and access to services and to further reduce their representation would be unfair.

If the proposed reduction in members for Cheshire West and Chester is implemented, our suggestion would be to move the ward boundary and align the Parish of Whitegate and Marton with Winsford Over and the Parish of Little Budworth. This would remove the Winsford Verdin portion of the current Ward (which could be a single member Ward) and leave a rural/town Ward of two members. For our Parish, we feel this would make sense and would be worth pursuing further.

In conclusion we would therefore ask that the Commission at least maintain the current level of representation.

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Kevin Crotty Sent: 05 June 2017 08:02 To: reviews Subject: Cheshire West and Cheshire 2017 Ward Boundary Review

Submission from Whitley Parish Council

Dear Sir / Madam

Cheshire West and Chester Boundary Review 2017

At our May council meeting, the upcoming boundary review was discussed and we would like to make the following representations:

With the current projected electorate in Cheshire West and Chester increasing from approximately 265,000 to 282,000 we feel that the number of councillors should be increasing proportionately and not decreasing from 75 to 69.

We are happy with the parishes which currently makeup our Marbury Ward. Being a rural parish, it is important to us that we are grouped with similar rural parishes which face similar issues to those of our own. We would not like to be amalgamated with a larger urban area which is likely to have issues which significantly differ from ours. In particular, we note the submission from the Parish (a mainly urban parish in close proximity to ourselves) to the 2009 Boundary review in which they stated, ‘Weaverham is a sustainable community which does not have cultural or economic links with any of its neighbouring parishes and therefore, the council feels, should remain as a whole, served by one member.’

Whilst we accept that from time to time changes must be made in order to ensure that the electoral role per councillor remains in balance, we would if possible like to remain in a mainly rural ward served by three councillors. Having 3 ward councillors has meant that they are easily able to cover for each other, we have three resources from which to canvass opinion and it is rare that our parish council meetings are not attended by at least one ward councillor.

Yours faithfully

Whitley Parish Council

Sent by Cllr K Crotty

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 05 June 2017 14:25 To: reviews Subject: Review of the boundaries of Cheshire West and Chester Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs,

I am writing on behalf of Wincham Parish Council with the resolved views of the Council.

The Parish Council is strongly opposed to the proposal to reduce the number of Unitary Councillors representing the Ward of Marbury or of Wincham being moved to another Ward.

The current arrangement of 9 parishes within the Ward of Marbury, represented by 3 Unitary Councillors works well and has done through various changes in personnel. That shows that the structure is sound and does not need reform.

Having 3 Unitary Councillors allows the work to be spread between different individuals with differing specialties. There would be too much work for fewer councillors, resulting in either the work remaining undone or else the demand that the remaining Unitary Councillors spent more of their time on Council matters. Wincham Parish Council finds benefit in the Unitary Councillors having outside interests and not being career politicians because it makes them more understanding of the concerns of their residents. Wincham Parish Council does not want full time, professional Unitary Councillors.

Having the spread of 9 parishes within the one Ward of Marbury gives a breadth of experience and a bond that brings the parishes together. This is helpful and fosters a sense of community.

Please note the views of Wincham Parish Council that any alteration to the current structure of Wincham Parish being within Marbury Ward and represented by 3 Unitary Councillors would, in the considered opinion of the Parish Council, have a detrimental effect on the relationship between Wincham and Cheshire West and Chester Council and would ill serve the interests of the residents of Wincham.

We trust that you will leave the current arrangement for Marbury Ward unaltered.

Yours faithfully,

Naomi Morris Clerk to Wincham Parish Council

1