LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF GREATER MANCHESTER THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIGAN Boundaries with: BOLTON and SALFORD in GREATER MANCHESTER ST. HELENS in MERSEYSIDE WARRINGTON in CHESHIRE CHORLEY and WEST LANCASHIRE in LANCASHIRE CHORLEY WEST LANCASHIRE ST. HE ENS SALFORD WARRINGTON REPORT NO. 655 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 655 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN MR K F J ENNALS CB MEMBERS MR G R PRENTICE MRS H R V SARKANY MR C W SMITH PROFESSOR K YOUNG THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF GREATER MANCHESTER THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIGAN AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BOLTON AND THE CITY OF SALFORD IN GREATER MANCHESTER, THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ST HELENS IN MERSEYSIDE, AND THE DISTRICTS OF WARRINGTON IN CHESHIRE AND CHORLEY AND WEST LANCASHIRE IN LANCASHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. This report contains our final proposals for the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan's boundaries with the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton and the City of Salford in Greater Manchester, the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens in Merseyside and the Districts of Warrington in Cheshire and Chorley and West Lancashire in Lancashire. We are making no proposals for radical change but are making a series of minor proposals to remove anomalies, such as the division of properties by local authority boundaries. Our report explains how we arrived at our proposals. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE START OF THE REVIEW 2. On 1 September 1987, we announced the start of a review of Greater Manchester and its metropolitan districts as part of the programme of reviews we are required to undertake under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. We wrote to each of the local authorities concerned. 3. Copies of the letter were sent to the county and district councils bordering the Metropolitan County; to parish councils in the adjoining districts; to the local authority associations; to Members of Parliament with a constituency interest; to the headquarters of the main political parties; to the local press, and the local television and radio stations; and to a number of other interested persons and organisations. 4. The Metropolitan Borough of Wigan was requested, in co- operation as necessary with other principal authorities, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. 5. A period of seven months from the date of our letter was allowed for all authorities, including those in the surrounding districts, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views on whether changes to the borough boundary were desirable, and if so, what those changes should be and how they would best serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US 6. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987 we received representations'from the Metropolitan Boroughs of Wigan, Bolton and St Helens, from Salf ord City Council, from the County Councils of Lancashire and Cheshire, from Warrington Borough Council, from West Lancashire District Council and from the Parish Councils of Shevington and Up Holland. We also received representations from the Greater Manchester Police and other interested bodies and from residents of the local authorities concerned. ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS 7. After considering these representations we published a letter on 15 August 1990 announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. Wigan, Bolton, St Helens, Chorley, Warrington, Salford, West Lancashire, Lancashire and Cheshire were asked to arrange for a notice to be published in the local press announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions and to post copies of the notices at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 10 October 1990. RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS 8. In response to our draft proposals we received comments from the Metropolitan Borough Councils of Wigan, Bolton and St Helens, from Salford City Council, from the County Councils of Cheshire and Lancashire and from West Lancashire District Council. We also received comments from the Greater Manchester Police, from the Parish Councils of Culcheth with Glazebury, Rainford, Up Holland and Wrightington, from Kenneth Hind MP and Ian McCartney MP. In addition, we received representations from 69 other individuals or organisations, 7,700 pro forma letters and two petitions. 6000 of the pro forma letters related to Haydock Park; the rest related to the proposed transfer of the area of land including Up Holland High School from Lancashire to Wigan. One of the petitions (395 signatures) related to proposed changes in the Billinge area; the other (58 signatures) related to the Glazebury area. ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 9. After considering the response to our draft proposals, we decided to issue a further draft proposal in respect of Wigan's boundary with St Helens. The letter announcing our further draft proposal was published on 15 November 1991. Copies were sent to Wigan and St Helens and also, for information, to those local authorities which had received our letter of 15 August 1990. Wigan and St Helens were asked to arrange for a notice to be published in the local press announcing our further draft proposals and to post copies of the notices at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 11 January 1992. RESPONSE TO OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS 10. In response to our further draft proposals we received representations from Wigan and St Helens, from a St Helens MB Councillor and from four other individuals or organisations. 11. As reguired by Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us and set out below our final proposals and decisions. SUGGESTIONS FOR RADICAL CHANGE Atherton and Leigh Jpterim Decision 12. Several members of the public suggested that the towns of Atherton and Leigh should be transferred from Wigan to Lancashire. The main grounds put forward were that the two towns were overshadowed by Wigan and that Wigan MBC did not spend sufficient money on the areas concerned. 13. We considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to us to suggest that local services to these areas were not provided effectively or that there was any strong local support for the changes proposed. We also felt that present-day geography made it difficult to transfer the towns to Lancashire, as they are separated from that county by Bolton (in Greater Manchester) to the north. Having regard to the guidelines set down for us which stipulate that radical change is only appropriate where we consider that present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government, we took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of these suggestions. Final Proposal 14. Four members of the public responded opposing our interim decision to make no proposal for the transfer of Atherton and Leigh from Wigan to Lancashire. We remained unconvinced, however, that radical change in this area would provide any major improvement in effective and convenient local government and we have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND BOLTON Wigan Golf Course and Arley Hall Interim Decision 15. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary with Bolton near Arley Wood so as to transfer Wigan Golf Course and Arley Hall from Bolton to Wigan. 16. Bolton objected to the suggestion without giving any reasons for its opposition. Ordnance Survey suggested an extension of Wigan's proposal to the north, to follow ground detail of Arley Wood. 17. The area is accessible from both boroughs and there is no evidence to suggest any difficulty in the provision of services to the golf course and Arley Hall from Bolton. In view of this, and the fact that the existing boundary follows clearly identifiable features, we took an interim decision to make no proposals in respect of this area. Final Proposal 18. Bolton supported our interim decision. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final. Low Green Draft Proposal 19. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary so as to unite all the dwellings in Low Green in Bolton. Bolton supported this suggestion. 20. As several houses in Low Green are divided by the existing boundary, we considered that it would be logical to unite them in Bolton. We therefore decided to adopt Wigan's suggestion as our draft proposal. Final Proposal 21. Bolton supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND SALFORD TyIdesley Interim Decision 22. Two members of the public suggested the transfer of Tyldesley from Wigan to Salford on the grounds that it has closer ties with Boothstown in Salford and that services could be more effectively provided by Salford. Although Tyldesley is close to Boothstown, we considered that there was no evidence to suggest that its links with that town were any stronger than those with neighbouring areas in Wigan. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of Tyldesley.