Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Cheshire West and Chester Conservative Group

Cheshire West and Chester Conservative Group

CWaC boundary review

Response to the draft recommendations from the West and Conservative Group

Introduction

The Conservative Group welcomes the 'Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council.' In making our response to these recommendations we would like to place on record our thanks to the Local Government Boundary Commission for for their work to date.

We support the overall reduction in the size of the council from 75 councillors to 70 (paragraph 26) which we believe will allow a sensible number of councillors to carry out their roles and responsibilities with no detrimental impact on the effectiveness of individuals and teams of councillors to do so.

Although our own scheme submitted at the initial stage of this process was based on a reduction to 69, we accept that for reasons of good electoral equality and based on the community evidence received, that a warding pattern for 70 councillors is a better solution. A more drastic reduction in the size of the council would, in our view, result in an excessive burden on elected members and might lead to the combination of areas with little affinity to each other, resulting in a 'forced fit' of wards and parishes together and a deterioration in the strong community identities which are a characteristic of this part of Cheshire.

We strongly support the plurality of ward member configurations as noted in paragraph 30 of the draft recommendations which is a common method used in many councils across the country. We agree with the Commission that a 'mix of one‐, two‐ and three‐councillor wards...would have good levels of electoral equality and in some places used clearly identifiable boundaries' (paragraph 28) evidenced when referring to the schemes submitted as part of this consultation process to date.

We support the Commission in their view that the 'draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests' although we will offer a number of suggestions where we believe improvements can be made, including changes to the names of proposed wards (paragraph 32).

At this stage we would reinforce our view that a mix of one‐, two‐ and three‐councillor wards is appropriate for Cheshire West and Chester and would urge the Commission to continue with this broad position for the following reasons:

‐ Different configurations meet the needs of individual areas and help provide for convenient local government. For example, a two‐councillor ward based around Upton in Chester is the most appropriate solution as the community is strong and distinct (based largely around the parish of Upton‐by‐Chester and District) and to split it into two one‐councillor wards would be both arbitrary and confusing for residents. A similar argument could be made for the town of which is a distinct community with a strong collegiate focus on itself and also in the area of in Chester where the whole of the community in that area is best represented by three‐councillors, working for the shared and common interests that exist across the ward. We believe there are many further examples across Cheshire West and Chester which would confirm this approach;

‐ Multi‐member representation means maintenance of representation when a councillor is absent for whatever reason (working, performing Executive duties, on holiday, is ill or has a personal interest in an item);

‐ Multi‐member representation allows councillors to share responsibilities, to focus on their own strengths and develop specialist interests within the local authority;

‐ Multi‐member representation allows a wide range of candidates to perform the role of councillor, including those who are working, looking after young children, who are retired ‐ a strong combination of factors that should aid representation of residents at this level.

We accept that there are instances where a one‐councillor option is the most appropriate solution for a particular area, as in the case of the proposed and Mollington ward. This is a distinct collection of rural communities on the periphery of Chester and reaching towards . It would be wrong to attach the villages that make up this proposed ward to another area for the sake of creating a multi‐member ward. The ward as currently proposed reflects the community of interests and identities.

We note the Commission's desire for strong examples of community support to confirm their view in respect of the draft recommendations and note the representations already received by a number of members of the public, community groups and parish councils. We support this approach and will continue to build our case based on clear examples from the local communities which are of paramount importance in this process.

NORTHERN RURAL WARDS

Eddisbury Hill

We support the boundaries proposed which will find favour with most of the parish councils in the ward, and which embrace changes to parish council boundaries carried out in the recent Local Government Review. We proposed the name of 'Eddisbury Hill' to reflect a significant change in the ward boundaries. However, the Commission’s proposals are so similar to the existing ward that it seems reasonable to retain the same name of ' and '.

Elton and Mickle

In respect of the proposed Elton & ward (paragraph 47) we broadly support the boundary of this modified ward and accept the consequent adjustments around the Commission's proposed Manley ward, which is the best compromise once the other boundaries are defined. We note that the Ellesmere Port and Conservative and Unionist Association propose some minor modifications to the boundary which we believe are sensible and we are happy to support them.

We appreciate the Commission taking on board our comments regarding the potential name of the ward and the existing strength of the name 'Chester Villages' which has been a unifying factor in the current ward (paragraph 48). We accept that the use of the prefix 'New' is potentially confusing for residents and would therefore suggest the name 'Gowy Rural' for this ward.

Given the disparate nature of the communities of which it is to be made up, we believe 'Elton & Mickle Trafford' gives too much prominence to the larger communities at the potential exclusion of the smaller villages which nevertheless have a strong identity. The is a dominant geographical feature that runs through the ward and is sufficiently generic, but well known, to give a clear identity to this new ward.

Frodsham

We support the boundaries proposed, which retain the identity and character of Frodsham and reflect its local infrastructure.

Helsby

We support the Commission’s proposals for a single ward, reflecting the parish boundaries and the self‐sufficient nature of . This proposal is widely supported across political parties.

Manley

We support the Commission’s proposed boundaries which create a ward of small rural villages close to the sandstone ridge and the , and with broadly similar concerns. Rather than offer a medley of small village names for this ward, we propose the name of “Sandstone”, the unifying feature of this area and which has arisen from discussions with parish councils.

Marbury

The natural boundaries of the existing Marbury ward make it difficult to adjust its size to the target requirements. We believe the Commission’s proposals here are the best fit, retaining a three‐ councillor ward but with revised boundaries. There are connections between the two areas with for example, Scouting troops in Barnton and Whitley drawing members from the wider area.

We support the Commission’s proposals.

Weaver and Cuddington

We support the Commission's proposals. Weaver and Cuddington ward has worked well as a three‐ member ward, the adoption of the as the northern boundary is logical, and the inclusion of and is sensible due to the communities of interest which exist between those villages and existing settlements, especially relating to the schools and libraries.

SOUTHERN RURAL WARDS

Farndon

The Commission’s proposal appears to be popular with the wider community; we therefore add our support.

Malpas

The administrative boundaries define much of the boundary for this ward. We support the Commission’s proposals to maintain the current boundaries of this single seat ward thereby maintaining all the informal working arrangements. This proposal seems to be widely supported.

Tattenhall

We support the Commission's proposals.

CHESTER

We would make a general point regarding the classification the LGBCE have used for 'areas' within their draft recommendations. We would note that the Saughall and Mollington ward has been listed as in a group with the recommendations for 'Neston.' Whilst the area looks to both Chester and Ellesmere Port from a pure geographical perspective, the villages in the proposed Saughall and Mollington ward (with the largest population centres) are very much 'Chester orientated.' Residents of Saughall, for example, which is the largest village of the proposed ward use Chester for all their common daily tasks, be it shopping, using leisure facilities, education and other activities.

Christleton & Huntington and Overleigh

We note support of the LGBCE for the concept of 'south Chester' (paragraph 60) and the clear support from local residents for the combination of the current and Park wards. As the draft recommendations state, 'residents across the area share common services, shops and schools; the police, fire and health services treat this area as one.'

We note that our proposals for a three‐councillor Overleigh ward appear to have the support of local residents as noted above (see personal submissions from residents, Jack Jackson, Graham Badrock, Stephen Jones and Michael Tomlinson as evidence) and that when visiting the area (paragraph 64) the LGBCE could see the 'highly persuasive' case for this solution in this area. As the LGBCE state, and as we argued in our initial submission, 'there appears little to differentiate Lache and parts of and that residents from across the area share facilities.'

We further note the LGBCE comments in respect of the planned ' Road' development (paragraph 61) and welcome the suggestion that this area should be included in the proposed Overleigh ward. We note the support for this proposal from Brian Westcott of the Westminster Park Residents’ Association. We would urge Cheshire West and Chester Council make the changes to parish arrangements noted in paragraph 65 to reflect the logic of this adjustment.

We agree with the LGBCE recommendation for a two‐councillor & Huntington ward (paragraph 66) which allows for strong electoral equality and sensibly brings together communities that surround the city of Chester but strongly look towards it as their focus and main community of interest. Rowton and Waverton have historic links to the city of Chester and look towards it clearly as their main conurbation.

In accepting the LGBCE proposals that see extensive changes to the existing Chester Villages ward, we believe the new ward as outlined is a sensible way forward. The name “Christleton & Huntington” is strong and identifiable and gives prominence to the two most populated parishes in this ward. It is difficult to find a more unifying name without it becoming overly cumbersome which is not to underestimate the strong sense of identity that a community such as feels and which is an important component of the current ward name for much of this area.

Upton and Newton &

We note the support of Upton‐by‐Chester and District Parish council for a ward in their area that retained the whole of the parish within its boundaries (paragraph 67). We would further note that this would appear to sit well with our proposal for a two‐councillor Upton ward which we 'justified on the basis that it was a clear community with many shared facilities' (paragraph 68). In the same paragraph we also note that a small part of the unparished part of Chester, as reflected in our submission for this area, be included in the new ward as residents use facilities in Upton.

We welcome the recognition of the well argued case for the placing of the grouped parish of Upton‐ by‐Chester & District Parish Council, along with Bache and Moston within the same Cheshire West and Chester ward. We believe the case put forward in paragraph 69 of the draft recommendations will receive widespread support from residents already in the Upton ward regarding the continuity of their strong and established representation and the common‐sense proposals to bring in the area off Plas Newton Lane (the Upton side) into the ward. We agree with the LGBCE that this will create the best level of electoral equality in this area of the city.

In noting this extension of the Upton ward boundary towards Plas Newton Lane (which means the inclusion of Arradon Court, Breton Close, Bank Close and Tiverton Close in Upton) we would suggest that the Commission’s further extension on the other side of Plas Newton Lane is unlikely to respect the sense of community residents feel in that area. Wealstone Court, Queensway and Newton Hall Drive fit naturally into a ward containing the majority of the current Newton ward, i.e. the proposed Newton & Hoole ward. We believe the boundary for Upton should stop at the broad junction between Brook Lane, Plas Newton Lane, Wealstone Lane, Well Lane and Newton Lane, as this is both natural and a clear junction between the two areas, indeed it is known locally as the ‘Newton corner’. Plas Newton Lane has been a longstanding boundary going back to the days of and is widely recognised by people in this way. In making this slight adjustment we would also suggest that the whole of Wealstone Lane be placed in the Upton ward, i.e. extend the boundary to the very end of the road. To prevent Whitton Drive and Horrocks Road being orphaned from other roads in the ward they sit, they should also be placed in the new Upton ward. These are minor tweaks but we believe they will better reflect the boundaries as local residents see them in that area of Chester.

These proposed changes are summarised here:

Move from current Newton (current polling district JN5) to the new Upton ward: Arradon Court ‐ 46 electors approx. Bank Close ‐ 19 electors approx. Breton Close ‐ 43 electors approx. Tiverton Close ‐ 49 electors approx. Wealstone Lane ‐ 10 electors approx.

Move from current Newton (current polling district JN4) to the new Upton ward: Horrocks Road ‐ 49 electors approx. Wealstone Lane ‐ 22 electors approx. Whitton Drive ‐ 21 electors approx.

Move from proposed Upton ward to the proposed Newton & Hoole ward (current polling district JN5): Queensway ‐ 114 electors approx. Newton Hall Drive ‐ 30 electors approx. Newton Lane ‐ houses from junction with Wealstone Lane to Kingsway Plas Newton Lane ‐ Newton side ‐ as affected by this adjustment Wealstone Court, Newton Lane ‐ 32 electors approx.

We note the comments of the LGBCE in paragraph 70 that, 'In relation to Newton & Hoole, we considered that the creation of single‐councillor wards risked splitting communities unnecessarily.' As the Commission found when visiting the area, this is clear to local residents who reside in these areas. We therefore welcome the LGBCE proposal for a three‐councillor Newton and Hoole ward which reflects the community in this area and will allow for strong representation of their common and interlinked interests.

As we noted in our overall submission, the Newton and Hoole area has distinct boundaries but their very close geographical proximity to each other is indicative of their historic and intertwined nature which has in the past led them to be connected for local government purposes, as was the case pre‐ 2011. The mixture of housing stock, shared local shopping facilities, bus services, road links and general sense of community make a compelling case for a three‐councillor ward in this area as recommended by the LGBCE. Since making our initial submission we would cite further evidence of the links between the two communities such as the shared policing arrangements in the area and individual examples of residents in Hoole using services in Newton such as the veterinary practice on Brook Lane. We wholly support the approach adopted by the Commission for this area, save for our suggested addition of Newton Hall Drive, Queensway and Wealstone Court, together with parts of Newton Lane and Plas Newton Lane as affected, from the proposed Upton ward (see above.)

Blacon, , Chester City and

We agree with the resident cited in paragraph 71 that there should be a three‐councillor Blacon ward as it has strong boundaries and a strong local identity, although we understand that to retain the current ward would see an electoral equality of some ‐15% (paragraph 74) which we agree is not acceptable and would give disproportionate representation to the area. We also note the view of Cheshire West and Chester Liberal Democrats (cited in paragraph 73) that the area would be best served by a three‐councillor ward. We believe this to be a widely held view within the local Blacon community, as the LGBCE has seen from a site visit to the area. In fact, Blacon is such a distinct ward that there is no easy way for it to be to split and runs the risk of splitting an important community (as the LGBCE noted in respect of the plans of Cheshire West Labour for this area – paragraph 73.) Indeed, we would cite the representation of resident, Reggie Jones, himself a former borough councillor for Blacon, in this regard: ‘It is my belief that changing the current boundaries or breaking a multi‐member ward into single member wards will be detrimental to electoral representation and community cohesion in Blacon.’

We concur with the LGBCE (paragraph 74) that there are no clear community ties between Blacon and the Saughall & Mollington ward to the north of the proposed ward. The Saughall & Mollington ward, as we have noted elsewhere, is overwhelmingly rural in nature and character and has very little, if any, affinity with the more urban and built up community within Blacon.

In recognition of the long established Blacon community, and some of its unique social and economic challenges within the city of Chester, we strongly support a ward that uses the current Blacon ward as the foundation for a new ward. The geographical restrictions in this area make the only logical expansion in a south‐easterly direction and we note and concur with the LGBCE in paragraph 74 in their support for our considered proposals for this ward.

We recognise the challenges the LGBCE have faced in this part of the city and the strong feelings of the community some have expressed in the Garden Quarter area. However, we would also note that the Garden Quarter ward is also the primary area for student accommodation and therefore a rather transient population. Many students are drawn to Chester from various parts of the country so whilst they may become attached to their area where they live for a short time, this is unlikely to be a long term relationship in the majority of cases. Whilst there is a strong community around the Garden Lane area, we believe this represents the true 'Garden Quarter' and fits naturally into the wider city of Chester. The area that is proposed to move into a Blacon ward, with the strong boundaries of the River Dee, the railway viaduct and the Shropshire Union is quite distinct from the remainder of 'Garden Quarter' which is increasingly associated with the . The roads off , such as Gladstone Avenue and Vernon Road which lead into Upper Cambrian Road and Whipcord Lane, have a focus that is directed towards 'Sealand' rather than Garden Quarter, assisted by strong road links between there and Blacon itself. Many people would refer to this area as the 'Sealand Basin', something quite different to Garden Quarter.

We note that there appears to be a consensus of opinion that the current Garden Quarter could be split in a sensible way, as the draft recommendations propose, and in particular the submission from the Cheshire West and Chester Labour Party in their overall representations to the initial phase of this process. Although we do not accept their case for a configuration of wards that splits Blacon as a whole, for the overwhelming reason that it has such a strong community identity, we note they do not regard the current Garden Quarter ward as being so rigidly cohesive that a sensible adjustment to it cannot be made.

We would propose, in seeking to address some of the concerns that residents in the current Garden Quarter ward have expressed about their community, that the three‐councillor ward as proposed be re‐named, ‘Blacon and Sealand.’ This would preserve a strong community identity in the name Blacon but also help integrate the new area between the western part of the current Garden Quarter ward and the area off Saughall Road (paragraph 74). Indeed, this area (which is polling district JG1 on our proposed scheme) runs seamlessly into the ‘Sealand Road’ retail area which has a long established identity and is reflected in local shops such as the ‘Sealand Fish Bar’ which sit on the A548 (Sealand Road).

In supporting the LGBCE proposals for a Blacon ward we would propose one small amendment to adjust what we understand from a number of residents to be an anomaly. In the current JA2 polling district a small number of houses along the A540, Parkgate Road are currently linked with the three member Blacon ward. We would propose moving the boundary of this polling district to that of the and placing these electors into what is currently the JQ5 polling district of the Upton ward. Our reasoning is that these houses are quite distinct in character and geography from the main hub of the Blacon estate and are indeed physically separated from it. Residents in this area look naturally towards Upton or other parts of Chester as their community of interest and have easy access into Upton via the Countess of Chester Country Park which also links into the Upton Dene area of the current Upton ward. This change would, on the current electorate figures, mean moving 81 residents / 33 houses from Blacon (JA2) on the register as it currently stands today to Upton (JQ5) and we believe it would find favour amongst the residents concerned.

In respect of the proposed Chester City ward (paragraph 75) we note the broad support from the LGBCE for our position in this area. We strongly concur that the Road area should be part of a city centre ward which we note has support from local residents too. We would reinforce our original argument that seeks to those areas that are ordinarily regarded as the ‘core city’ by local people. A three‐councillor ward with strong representation will be able to take a strategic city focused view of the area and its many unique issues, not least around air quality, traffic management, congestion and the challenge of maintaining a vibrant city centre that balances the needs of residents and the demands of a popular and historic city. We support the LGBCE in their adjustment in the south‐eastern corner of the proposed ward to create a clear boundary.

The proposed ward has strong regard to the similarity of housing stock within it which varies from terraced accommodation to townhouses, residential apartments and significant properties of architectural/historic interest. Other boundaries as previously noted are strong for this proposed ward and it has strong transport links (the River Dee boundary, the railway line, numerous ‘main’ roads and other transport options.)

We would propose an adjusted name for this ‘Chester City’ ward and would suggest ‘Chester City and Boughton’ owing to the fact that it takes in almost all of the current Boughton ward, the main thoroughfare of Boughton is in the proposed ward and there are established historical associations that would be respected by the incorporation of the name into the city centre ward.

We note the recommendation of the LGBCE to create two single‐councillor wards of Boughton Heath and Vicars Cross respectively (paragraph 76). We understand the logic for this split and accept that they might be viewed as distinctive areas. However, we would invite the LGBCE to look again at the clear links between these two areas which have benefited in recent times from two‐councillor representation which we would contend has been well received and reflects the local community in its true sense.

We would emphasise that is one of the two unique areas within the city of Chester (Upton being the other one) which has its own parish council, formed in 1894. We believe it should as far as possible form a ward in its own right. There are well established community links that it is difficult to appreciate only in names of communities as they don’t necessarily show the natural cross‐over between areas that in reality regard themselves as one. We would refer the LGBCE to our previous arguments for this ward and the likelihood that a two‐councillor ward would provide for convenient local government for residents, not least in those areas where there is already confusion about who their representatives are.

We would also refer the Commission to the individual submission made by Cllr. Pamela Hall in response to these draft recommendations. Cllr. Hall is one of the two ward councillors for the current Great Boughton ward and makes a strong and detailed case for a two‐member ward for this area of Chester based on her long experience as a borough and parish councillor. Cllr. Hall comments on the extensive crossover of issues within the ward in the various communities that make it up, the links regarding schooling and shared services and the importance of the parish council as a uniting factor in this area.

National concerns about rising levels of congestion and vehicle emissions are reflected in the views of residents on both sides of the A51; although the section running through Boughton Heath is not included in the Air Quality Management Zone recently declared by CWaC which stops at Cherry Road, residents here are just as concerned . We feel that at the present time, it is important that ward councillors here are able to represent the concerns of residents on both sides of the road about traffic passing through their area and the associated emissions.

ELLESMERE PORT

The information in this section is drawn primarily from information supplied by the Ellesmere Port and Neston Conservative & Unionist Association; their individual submission is likely to contain more detailed evidence.

Great Sutton

We support the Commission’s proposals.

Ledsham & Manor

We support the Commission’s proposals for the warding arrangement. The A41 Chester Road is a strong boundary in this part of town and the creation of a ward entirely on the west side of the A41 does give clear distinct boundaries and good electoral equality especially once the Sutton New Hall Farm is developed and such a sizeable community construction will be wholly contained within one council ward.

Since the ancient village of Ledsham does not lie within the ward, we recognise that there is an argument for changing the ward name. However, we prefer the arguments of resident, Mr Soper. that the name has an established identity and that the major new development in the ward will also bear the name of Ledsham rather than Sutton. On balance we support the maintenance of the name “Ledsham and Manor” for this ward.

Netherpool

We support the Commission’s proposals.

Overpool & Grange

We support the Commission’s proposals and their arguments. We note the comments about the Great Hall Park Development and the area around Trinity Road and support its inclusion in the & Grange ward.

Strawberry & Sutton

We support the Commission’s proposals.

Westminster

We support the Commission’s proposals and their reasons.

This is a distinct community and always has been, with clear boundaries.

Whitby Groves

We support the Commission’s proposals.

We agree that Underwood Drive does make a natural strong community divide to enable the creation of two single member wards to cover the Whitby area of Ellesmere Port with reasonable electoral equality.

Whitby Heath

We support the recommendations for the creation of this ward as described in the draft recommendations to include the isolated development of Stanney Oaks thereby bringing this into the Whitby community part of Ellesmere Port urbanisation.

Wolverham

We support the Commission’s proposals and their reasons. This is a distinct community and always has been with clear boundaries. We note the Commission's comments about the Great Hall Park Development and the area around Trinity Road and support its exclusion from the proposed Wolverham ward.

NESTON

As for the Ellesmere Port area, the information in this section is drawn primarily from information supplied by the Ellesmere Port and Neston Conservative & Unionist Association; their individual submission is likely to contain more detailed evidence.

Neston & Parkgate

We support the Commission’s proposal to create one ward represented by three councillors to cover the footprint of the Town Council, as it is a cohesive unit and a community together. The town of Neston and the villages of Parkgate on the one side and and Ness on the other side of Neston are one urban collective with no clear physical barriers between them. The inclusion of into this new warding arrangement maintains the close and historic community connections of Burton village with Ness, and the boundary between the Neston part of Little Neston and Ness has no clear definition. The former Neston Urban District Council did include Burton Village so the new warding arrangement will re‐establish lost historic community ties.

Willaston & Thornton

We support the Commission’s proposals in connection with Willaston and Thornton Ward. This ward straddles the area between Ellesmere Port & Neston. Its residents are affiliated neither to Ellesmere Port nor to Neston.

It has two main settlements, Willaston at its centre a village of around 3,000 residents and and Hooton with around 1,200 residents who have always looked to each other for support and community cohesion. Willaston village is a distinct community as it is bounded, surrounded and enclosed by major roads, the M53, the A41, A540 and the A550. The B5133 runs through its middle. It abuts the Wirral Borough Council area to its northern boundary. The proposed ward has active residents' societies in both Willaston and Hooton villages with many local organisations, such as the WI, sports clubs, choirs, horticultural societies, numerous places of worship of different denominations, independent shops and businesses, a GP surgery and many more locally based community organisations and services.

It has excellent transport links which allow ready access to the Wirral, Liverpool, Chester, North and the rest of the country from the Railway station in Hooton Village (and internationally from the direct link from Liverpool City to John Lennon Airport and via Chester to Airport) and also the connecting bus services through the villages. It has been a separate ward for many years as it has met the criteria for uniqueness and number of voters per councillor consistently for a long period of time. Its residents have much in common in this largely rural area and less so than with the urban areas of Ellesmere Port or Neston.

Saughall & Mollington

We refer the LGBCE to our comments above (under the City of Chester wards) regarding the categorisation used in relation to Saughall & Mollington and its placement here with your recommendations for the ‘Neston area.’

Our view is that Saughall & Mollington should be considered broadly in terms of Chester as that is the main conurbation to which the ward looks.

We note and welcome the LGBCE acceptance of our proposals for the Saughall & Mollington ward which include the addition of Puddington into the new ward (paragraphs 92 to 94.) We note the view of Parish Council, which we believe is widely held amongst parish councils in the area of this ward, that they would wish for a Saughall & Mollington ward to be retained. We further note the support from a local resident and parish councillor, Amanda Clarke, (paragraph 92) and from E A Harkness for the commonality of interests between Backford, Mollington and associated villages. This is a widely held view within the area here which we anticipate will be reinforced with further representations.

In respect of the inclusion of Puddington in this ward, we further refer to a recent parish council meeting in (September 2017), where their joint working on rural broadband issues, of common interest in both parishes, was discussed at length. This is a strong example of the similarity in outlook of the parishes in the area and how they are already working together to seek solutions to problems in their rural communities.

NORTHWICH

Davenham, Moulton & Kingsmead (' ')

We note the logic of the Commission’s proposals, but believe the two proposed wards should be combined because the residents function as a single community despite their different histories.

There are good communications between the two proposed wards, including a public underpass which goes under the A533 (and A556), providing a link between and Leftwich. It emerges by the back of the Secondary School (County High School Leftwich). Many school children use it, as do residents of Davenham to access the Woodpecker Hotel (Premier Inn).

For indoor amenity, Leftwich has only the Woodpecker (with no function rooms for hire), the Bowling Green pub near the railway (equally close to Kingsmead as Leftwich), and no community centre. Unsurprisingly, residents attending clubs and societies tend to join activities within Davenham, Moulton and Kingsmead, attending theatrical performances by the Davenham Players, using the doctors and dentist in Kingsmead and Davenham, and hiring the British Legion hall for parties. Some Leftwich residents attend the Davenham church rather than the Leftwich one, and vice‐versa.

Conversely, Leftwich has a primary school and a secondary school attended by most of the children in Kingsmead, Davenham and Moulton. Children who live on both sides of Road (Kingsmead and Leftwich) attend Leftwich Primary School. A Family Support Unit in Leftwich covers the whole area, and similarly the Brownie pack.

Linked to the above, there is only one park/play area in Leftwich, but there are nine in Kingsmead. Many Leftwich children and families use the parks in Kingsmead because they accompany school friends, some of whom live on the other side of London Road.

The three ward councillors often pool their Members’ Budget awards to assist with local infrastructure serving the whole community, and the Leftwich park referred to above is currently being redeveloped, with match funding provided by all three current ward members.

We regard the community as a close one and believe it would be better served by retaining a three‐ councillor ward. In this case, we would prefer to retain the current ward name of ‘Davenham and Moulton’ because of the similarity of the proposed boundaries with the established ward identity.

Hartford and Greenbank

We support the Commission’s proposal to retain the community links between Hartford and Greenbank. Many residents of Greenbank feel a closer affinity to Hartford than to Northwich using the schools, the church and the restaurants in Hartford. We believe that this proposal will find support with residents.

Northwich

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Northwich Witton

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Rudheath

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Shakerley

We support the Commission’s proposal to retain this long established ward.

WINSFORD AND

Tarporley

We support the Commission’s proposal and believe that it will gain the support of the community and parish councils included.

Winsford Dene

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Winsford Gravel

We support the Commission’s proposal to split the current Wharton and Gravel ward into two single seat Wharton and Gravel wards. This reflects the very different nature of the two wards. The new Gravel ward has a pronounced rural nature, with Occlestone Green and having local service centres in Winsford and in .

In the proposed plan, the elected ward member would represent all aspects of the ward with its diverse needs and ensure adequate representation of the rural localities.

Another argument in support of the proposed boundaries is the predicted expansion alongside the Weaver Flashes, which would be significant and likely provide another local service centre for residents.

Winsford Over & Verdin

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Winsford Swanlow

We support the Commission’s proposal.

Winsford Wharton

We support the Commission’s proposal.

The new Wharton ward would reflect the dense population of the Wharton area and its needs and dependencies on the local infrastructure would be well looked after, with the doctors surgery and church at the heart of the ward.

There is further expansion planned on the industrial estate (on its northern edge) and this positive economic and social impact (with new jobs and facilities created) on a single Wharton ward rather than a combined Wharton and Gravel ward would better managed and enhanced with a single ward councillor.

CONCLUSION

In general, we strongly support the Commission’s proposals and agree that a 70 seat council provides a better solution than a 69 seat council.

We believe that a few improvements can be made and the electorate better served: by merging the proposed Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath wards, by merging the proposed Northwich Leftwich and Davenham, Moulton & Kingsmead wards, and by making some minor adjustments to ward boundaries.

Where ward boundaries are substantially unchanged, we have preferred to retain existing ward names where we feel that a ward identity has been established.

We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to and comment upon the Commission’s work.

Top View