Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 150 LOCAL GOVERNBaKNl1 BOUNDARY COM1V1I3S ION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. /SO Local Government Boundary Commission for England Room 123 20 Albert Embankment London SE1 7TJ Telephone OiaHDBOOOSE 211 6829 Our ref J LGBC/D/V? The Chief Executive Borough of Crewe and Nontwich Delamere House Delamere Street CREWE CW1 2JZ April 1976 Dear Sir REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS REPORT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION 1. I refer to the Boundary Commission's letter of 7 April 1976 enclosing Report No 150 announcing the final proposals for revised electoral arrangements for the borough of Crewe and Nantuich. 2. I regret that there were errors in the order of retirement at Schedule 2 to the report, and I should be glsd if you would substitute the corrections as detailed below:- No of Councillors Name of Ward representing Ward 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year PECKPORTGN 1 1 FE - - WYBUNBURY 2 1 1 PE - PE = Parish Election 3» Copies of this letter are being sent to the Home Secretary and to those who received copies of the Commission's letter and Report No 150 of 7 April 1976. YoiWa faithfully S W INNES LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Countess Of Albemarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chieholm. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, C3E. To the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF CREWE AND NANTWICH IN THE COUNTY OF CHESHIRE 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Crewe and Nantwich in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 12 August 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Crewc and Nantwich Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the Cheshire County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned, Parish Councils and Parish Meetings in the borough and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and to the local government press* Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3. Crowe and Nantwich Borough Council were invited'to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 tn the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed slzo of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they nubmitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 1 'f. In accordance with section ?(^Xb) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council have exercised an option for a system of elections by thirds. 5. On 12 February 1975» Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. The Council proposed to divide the area into 26 wards each returning 1 or 3 councillors to form a council of 60 members. 6. ffe considered the draft scheme, together with the comments which we had received and those which had been transmitted to us by the Borough Council. The comments included an alternative scheme submitted on behalf of a minority group on the Council and a local, political association. This scheme provided for the division of the borough into 28 wards each returning one or 3 councillors to form a council of 60 members, 7. Wo noted that the Borough Council's proposed scheme would result in the over-representation of Crewe compared with the rest of the borough and, moreover, that the wards proposed by the Council within Crewe would produce a standard of representation in the town which was numerically uneven. We thought that the wards proposed for Crewe in the alternative scheme offered a better numerical standard but noted that the scheme would lead, overall, to the under-representation of the town compared with the rest of the borough. In the light of this appraisal, we decided to draw up a compromise scheme for 57 mnmbere. Using as a basis the wards proposed in the alternative scheme for Crewe and the Council's proposed wards in the refit of the borough we mude a number of modifications to secure a better standard of equality of representation, to meet criticisms of the Council's scheme which we thought were justified and, within Crewe, to secure boundary lines which were more readily identifiable on the ground. The resultant scheme appeared to us to offer a proper balance of representation between Crewe and the rest of the borough and to comply with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our own guidelines. We decided to formulate our draft proposals accordingly. 8. On 25 September 1975 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's drnft scheme. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We anked that any comments should reach us by 21 November 1975« 9. Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council informed us that they accepted the draft proposals. However, they suggested a number of boundary realignments within Crewe which they considered would secure better community of interest, technically better boundaries and improved equality of representation. They also suggested the transfer of the parish of Hough from the proposed Shavington wnrd to the proposed Wybunbury ward and the transfer of the parish of Rope from the latter ward to the Shavington ward. Finally they requested the renaming of the proposed Woolstanwood ward so that it would be known as St Barnabas ward. 10. Cheshire County Council stated that there would be no insuperable difficulty in forming county electoral divisions based on the riroft proposals whether as proposed or as modified in accordance with the nuggcstion of the Borough Council. However, they stated a preference for the alterations which the Borough Council had suggested. 11. The local political association which had sent us the alternative scheme expressed agreement with the draft proposals except for the parishes of Hough and Rope which they thought should be dealt with in the manner recommended by the Borough Council. Four parish councils, including those for the parishes of Rope and Hough, likewise supported these transfers. However, Wistaston Parish Council thought that the parish of Rope should be included in the proposed Wells Green ward as the Borough Council had proposed in thoir original draft scheme. They also asked that the proposed Wells Green ward should be renamed "Wistaston11. Finally, we heard from Willaston Parish Council who expressed disappointment that the proposed Willaston East ward would be allocated only one councillor and asked us to consider additional representation. 12. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we h&d received and decided that we should adopt, with minor modifications recommended by the Ordnance Survey, the changes to the ward boundaries which the Borough Council had proposed* On ward names, we agreed that the proposed Wells Green ward should be renamed "Wistaston" and that the Woolstanwood ward should be renamed "St Barnabas". We could find no grounds for allocating a second councillor to the proposed Willastori East ward. We VOW resolved to formulate our final proposals accordingly. 13- Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to this report and on the attached maps. Schedule 1 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. Schedule 2 shows our proposals for the order of retirement of councillors. The boundaries of the proposed wards are defined on tho maps. PUBLICATION 1't. In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the maps are being sent to Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council and will be available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the maps, is set out in Schedule 3 to this report. Signed ' L.S. EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN) JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) DIANA ALBHMARLE T C BKNFIELD MICHAEL CHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLEY DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) • March 1976 SCHEDULE 1 BOROUGH OF CREWE AND NANTWICH: NAMES OF PROPOSED WARDS AND NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS NAME OF WARD NO OF COUNCILLORS ACTON 1 ALEXANDRA 3 AUDLEM 1 BARONY WEAVER 3 13UNBURY 1 OOMBERMERE .