LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF GREATER

THE OF Boundaries with: and in ST. HELENS in in CHESHIRE and WEST 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 IN GREATER MANCHESTER, THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ST HELENS IN MERSEYSIDE, AND THE DISTRICTS OF WARRINGTON IN CHESHIRE AND CHORLEY AND 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, , Up Holland and , 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 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 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.

Final Proposal

23. Salford supported our interim decision. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Mort Lane

Draft Proposal

24. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary with Salford in the vicinity of Mort Lane to the Wigan-Manchester railway so as to unite a housing development in Salford. Salford supported Wigan's suggestion but felt that the boundary should follow the centre rather than the southern edge of the railway. Ordnance Survey suggested a minor adjustment to Salford's proposal to tie the boundary to firm detail.

25. We considered that the unification of the housing development would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and decided to adopt Wigan's suggestion as our draft proposal. Final Proposal

26. Salford supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm.our draft proposal as final.

Boothstown

Draft Proposal

27. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary so as to unite the area of Boothstown south of the East Lancashire Road in Salford. Salford made a similar proposal but suggested following the centre of the East Lancashire Road rather than the southern side. Wigan's suggestion was supported by the Conservative Association and the Worsley Liberal Association; however, the Liberal Association suggested further extending the proposal to include that part of Boothstown north of the East Lancashire Road. Similar suggestions to Salford's were made by the Greater Manchester Police and the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (North Western Area).

28. Objections to Wigan's suggestion were received from the Governors of the Tyldesley Boothstown Methodist Primary School, who suggested an alternative boundary to leave their school in Wigan, and from one member of the public.

29. We agreed that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to unite the area of Boothstown south of the East Lancashire Road in Salford. We decided to adopt Wigan's suggestion as our draft proposal, with a minor technical amendment to follow the northern side of the East Lancashire Road.

Final Proposal

30. Salford and one member of the public supported the draft proposal. It was opposed by the governors and headmaster of Tyldesley Boothstown Methodist Primary School and thirteen other members of the public because of concern about the effect of the proposed change on education and, in particular, its effect on parental choice and summer holiday arrangements. They also considered that the standard of Wigan's schools was better than Salford's. However, we did not consider that these arguments alone could justify a decision not to unite Boothstown under one authority. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Ellenbrook

Draft Proposal

31. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary so as to unite residential estates, which were currently under development, in Wigan. Salford made a similar proposal but suggested that the new boundary should follow the centre lines of roads rather than the sides. Objections to Wigan's suggestion were received from Reverend S D A Killwick, vicar of St Mary the Virgin, Ellenbrook and St Andrew, Boothstown, the Parochial Church Council of Worsley and one member of the public. The Parochial Church Council felt that Wigan's suggestion would divide the new Ellenbrook Village and estates and suggested instead that they be united in Salford.

32. We felt that the boundary suggested by each authority had been superseded by further development to the east. We also felt that Ellenbrook looked more towards Salford than Wigan and decided therefore to issue a draft proposal to unite the village and estates in Salford.

Final Proposal

33. Two local clergymen supported our draft proposal. It was opposed by Salford and two members of the public. Salford gave no reasons for its opposition and we did not feel that the other objectors had supplied any new evidence to justify maintaining the current division of Ellenbrook. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Chat Hoss

Interim Decision

34. Salford City Council initially suggested realigning the boundary at so as to unite two areas of biological importance in Salford. However, it subsequently withdrew this suggestion.

35. We considered whether the /Manchester railway would provide a clear boundary in this area, but concluded that it would not offer any obvious improvement in effective and convenient local government. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals in the Chat Moss area.

Final Decision

36. Salford supported our interim decision. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND CHORLEY

Interim Decision

37. We received no submissions in respect of this boundary. We considered that no benefit to effective and convenient local government would result from any realignment and therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals for this area.

10 Final Decision

38. We received no response to our interim decision and have decided to confirm it as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND WEST LANCASHIRE

The H6

Interim Decision

39. We considered whether to use the M6 as the boundary between Wigan and West Lancashire. Whilst accepting that the motorway would provide an excellent geographical boundary, we did not consider that there was sufficient justification to support its adoption for the entire Wigan/West Lancashire boundary. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals in respect of the M6 for the whole section of boundary.

Final Proposal

40. West Lancashire supported our interim decision. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Shevington Moor

Draft Proposal

41. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary near Shevington Moor so as to make it more easily identifiable.

42. Wigan's suggestion was supported by West Lancashire District Council, Lancashire County Council and Shevington Parish Council; however, West Lancashire suggested extending the proposal take in more land to the south west of Shevington Moor. Ordnance Survey suggested extending the proposal to remove a section'of

11 defaced boundary.

43. We agreed that Wigan's suggestion would create a more easily identifiable boundary and decided to adopt it, subject to Ordnance Survey's proposed modification, as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

44. West Lancashire, Lancashire County Council and Wrightington Parish Council supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Tontine

Draft Proposal

45. Wigan, and the Greater Manchester Police, suggested transferring Tontine from West Lancashire to Wigan.

46. West Lancashire opposed Wigan's suggestion and put forward an alternative proposal which transferred more of the adjacent built-up area to West Lancashire. West Lancashire's suggestion was supported by Up Holland Parish Council and four members of the public. Ordnance Survey suggested minor amendments to both proposals to remove sections of defaced boundary.

47. We felt that Tontine had close links with Orrell in Wigan and therefore decided to adopt Wigan's suggestion as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

48. Wigan and a member of the public supported our draft proposal. However, it was opposed by West Lancashire, Lancashire County Council, Up Holland Parish Council, Kenneth Hind MP, three local schools, West Lancashire Teachers Association, West Lancashire Health Authority and six members of the public. We

12 also received over 1,700 pro forma letters from members of the public who wished to remain in West Lancashire. These representations indicated that Up Holland High School, in Tontine, has an important role in Lancashire's education system. In view of this, and the expressed wishes of the residents, we have decided to withdraw our draft proposal and to make no proposals for change in this area.

Appley Bridge

Interim Decision

49. Wigan suggested transferring from West Lancashire to Wigan. Its suggestion was supported by the North West Regional Health Authority and the Wigan Family Practitioner Committee but was opposed by West Lancashire and twenty five local residents, who argued that Appley Bridge is in a pleasant green belt environment and should remain in West Lancashire.

50. We concluded that the area was self-contained and should remain in West Lancashire, and that the Calico Brook already provides a clear boundary. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals in respect of Appley Bridge.

Final Proposal

51. West Lancashire and 41 residents supported our interim decision but Wigan, S.A.B.R.E (a local environmental pressure group) and 53 residents opposed it. However, we did not consider that the objectors had provided sufficient new evidence to justify transferring the village to Wigan and again concluded that the current boundary was satisfactory. We have therefore decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

13 THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND HARRINGTON

Glazebury/Kenyon

Draft Proposal

52. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary so as to unite Glazebury in Wigan. It also suggested transferring a triangular area of land north of the A580 from Warrington to Wigan. Wigan's suggestions were supported by the Greater Manchester Police and opposed by Warrington's Conservative Group and two members of the public.

53. Warrington and Cheshire made alternative suggestions to unite Glazebury in Warrington as well as transferring the triangular area of land to Wigan. Warrington and Cheshire also suggested uniting Kenyon in Warrington.

54. After considering these suggestions we felt that a better boundary in this area could be provided by using the A580 westwards and then following the dismantled railway southwards to the existing boundary. This would also unite Glazebury in Warrington and still transfer the triangular area of land to Wigan. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal on these lines and also to adopt Cheshire's proposal in respect of Kenyon.

Final Proposal

55. Our draft proposal was supported by Cheshire, Culcheth with Glazebury Parish Council and one member of the public. However, that part of the draft proposal relating to Glazebury was opposed by Wigan, the Leigh Conservative Association and 6 members of the public. A petition containing 58 signatures opposing it was also received. The main reasons for opposing our draft proposal were the close proximity of Wigan local government offices, satisfaction with local services and concern about the possible loss of subsidised public transport.

14 56. We still considered that the A580 would provide the best boundary in this area, however, and concluded that, despite some local opposition to our draft proposal, Glazebury should be united in Warrington. We have therefore Decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WIGAN AND ST HELENS

The H6

Interim Decision

57. We considered whether to use the M6 as the boundary between Wigan and St Helens. Again, although we recognised that it would provide an excellent geographical boundary, we did not believe that there was sufficient justification to support its adoption for the whole length of the Wigan/St Helens boundary. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposals in respect of the M6 for the whole section of boundary.

Final Decision

58. We received no comments in respect of our interim decision and have decided to confirm it as final.

Kings Hoss/Billinge Hill

Draft Proposal

59. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary near Billinge Hill, by transferring Kings Moss and an area of open countryside to the east as far as Upholland Road, from Wigan to St Helens. A similar suggestion was made by the Greater Manchester Police.

60. St Helens made an alternative suggestion which still transferred Kings Moss but included a smaller area of open

15 countryside. The National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations (North Western Area) and two members of the public suggested that Kings Moss should be transferred to West Lancashire.

61. We considered that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to transfer Kings Moss to St Helens. We concluded that Wigan's suggestion would provide the better boundary and consequently decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

Final Proposal

62. Both local authorities supported our draft proposal. The Greater Manchester Police suggested that, in order to assist effective policing in the area, the section of land between Plane Tree Farm and Upholland Road should be retained in Wigan . Given the rural nature of the area, we concluded that the suggestion by the police would not offer any substantial improvement in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Bi Hinge

Draft Proposal

63. Wigan suggested realigning the boundary near Billinge to the middle of Upholland Road, Main Street and Newton Road; thus uniting divided properties north and east of these roads in Wigan.

64. St Helens suggested the transfer of a larger area, including North Ashton, to the borough. This suggestion would unite properties and development in St Helens, as well as uniting Billinge Parish Church with its village. The suggestion was supported by the Reverend D Lyons and opposed by one member of the public.

16 65. We did not consider that Wigan's suggestion dealt effectively with the boundary anomalies and local affinities in the area. We decided therefore to adopt St Helens' suggestion as far as Windy Arbour, incorporating a technical amendment in the Mount Pleasant Farm area. From there, the boundary would join the following it southward until it meets the M62, thus uniting North Ashton in St Helens.

Final Proposal

66. St Helens supported our draft proposal in its entirety. Wigan endorsed the principle of uniting BiHinge under one authority; however, it suggested a modification to the proposal which would use Down Brook and field boundaries and have the effect of transferring a smaller area of land. Seventeen members of the public wrote to oppose the transfer of Billinge, and a petition bearing 155 signatures opposing the draft proposal was also received.

67. We took the view that, notwithstanding the objections received, Billinge clearly formed a single community, and should be united in one authority. We recognised that Wigan's alternative suggestion would provide a sensible and clearly defined boundary and would continue to meet the objective of uniting Billinge. We have therefore decided to confirm as final that part of our draft proposal relating to Billinge, subject to Wigan's suggested modification.

68. That part of our draft proposal concerning North Ashton was opposed by Wigan, Mr Ian MacCartney MP (who had submitted a 295 signature petition), the North Ashton Residents' Action Group and 169 members of the public. In the light of the clearly expressed views that North Ashton's affinities lie with Wigan rather than St Helens, we have decided to withdraw this part of our draft proposal.

17 Haydock Park

Draft Proposal

69. Wigan suggested the transfer of Haydock Park and the racecourse from St Helens to Wigan and the Greater Manchester Police made a similar suggestion. St Helens opposed Wigan's suggestion and submitted an alternative realignment which transferred recent extensions to the race course to its own local authority area.

70. Although we recognised St Helens' wish to retain Haydock Park in its area, we considered that the racecourse was cut off from the rest of St Helens by the M6 and and that it seemed to look more to Wigan. We therefore decided to adopt Wigan's suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor technical amendment.

Further Draft Proposal

71. Although our draft proposal was supported by Wigan, it was strongly opposed by St Helens and several local organisations and firms. St Helens was concerned at the loss of an important potential development area and claimed that our draft proposal would divide it between two local authorities, making negotiations more complicated, it also argued that preparation of its Unitary Development Plan would be adversely affected and that the creation of new employment opportunities might be hindered. In addition, over 6,000 pro forma letters opposing the draft proposal were received from residents of St Helens.

72. Having regard to these representations, we accepted that the M6 was less of a barrier than it had first appeared. We were also persuaded that the affinities of those who live at Haydock Park lay with St Helens. We therefore decided to withdraw our draft proposal and to issue a further draft proposal for the unification of Haydock Park in St Helens; for the unification of

18 Park House Farm in Wigan; and for the replacement of a section of defaced boundary at Lowton by aligning the boundary to the railway between Junction and Parkside Manchester Junction.

Final Proposal

73. Wigan opposed our further draft proposal for Haydock Park. It pointed out that the area was within the Green Belt and said that it therefore questioned St Helens' suggestion that it was a prime development area. Wigan also questioned the relevance of the 6,000 pro-forma letters we had received in response to our original draft proposal on the grounds that the majority of the respondents did not live in the area that would be transferred by the proposed changes. Wigan also argued that recent developments around the racecourse, such as the Post House Hotel, the Business Park and a new housing estate, which had been built within the last ten years, had no historical ties with St Helens. Finally, it pointed out that responsibility for traffic control outside the racecourse lay with Greater Manchester Police and that our original draft proposal would rationalise policing responsibilities for Haydock Park.

74. St Helens, a St Helens councillor and Peel Investments (North) Ltd supported our further draft proposal for Haydock Park. Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority and another member of the public responded, saying they had no comment to make. A further member of the public supported our further draft proposal for Lowton, and this was the sole comment received in respect of this area.

75. We had previously recognised the strong feeling of identification of Haydock Park with St Helens, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the objectors to our original draft proposal lived outside the area affected. We still considered this to be the case and could not see any new arguments in Wigan's case which could justify a return to our original

19 proposal. We had some sympathy with Wigan's arguments about rationalising policing responsibilities. However, no evidence was put to us to show that policing Haydock Park causes undue difficulties. We concluded that any potential savings in policing costs, which might be achieved by transferring Haydock Park to Wigan, did not outweigh the strong arguments made in favour of its retention in St Helens, which we had accepted.

76. In relation to the arguments put forward by the two authorities about the development status of the Haydock Park area, we do not recommend boundary changes for the purpose of either promoting or frustrating development but base our decisions on effective and convenient local government. We are not aware of any firm proposals for development in the Haydock Park area and we remain of the opinion that the case for the retention of Haydock Park in St Helens rests on the interests of effective and convenient local government and not on any advantage to the owners in the area from being in one authority or the other.

77. We have therefore decided to confirm our further draft proposal for Haydock Park as final, together with the minor adjustment at Lowton.

ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES

78. A table showing the electoral changes recommended as consequential to our proposals is attached at Annex B. Only a small number of electors are affected by the changes and we do not anticipate an adverse effect on electoral representation at either district or county level.

CONCLUSIONS

79. We believe that our final proposals, which are summarised

20 in Annex C to this report, are in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and we commend them to you.

PUBLICATION

80. A separate letter is being sent to the Metropolitan Boroughs of Wigan, Bolton and St Helens, to the City of Salford, to the County Councils of Cheshire and Lancashire, and to Chorley, Warrington, and West Lancashire District Councils, asking them to deposit copies of this report at their main offices for inspection for a period of six months. They are also being asked to put notices to that effect on public notice boards. Arrangements have been made for similar notices to be inserted in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in this matter and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than six weeks from the date our final proposals are submitted to you. Copies of this report, with the maps attached at Annex A illustrating the proposed changes, are being sent to all those who received our draft proposals letter of 15 August 1990, to those who made written representations to us, and to other interested parties.

21 Signed: K F J ENNALS (Chairman)

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Commission Secretary

23 April 1992

22 ft

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW

WIGAN MB

AFFECTING WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT AND CHORLEY BOROUGH IN LANCASHIRE COUNTY, ST. HELENS MB IN MERSEYSIDE COUNTY, WARRINGTON BOROUGH IN CHESHIRE COUNTY, AND THE CITY OF SALFORD AND BOLTON MB IN GREATER MANCHESTER COUNTY

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other existing Boundary Other proposed Boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. LANCASHIRE COUNTY CHORLEY B LOCATION DIAGRAM

WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT BOLTON MB

GREATER MANCHESTER COUNTY

WIGAN MB

Map 4

CITY OF SALFORD ST HELENS MB MERSEYSIDE COUNTY

WARR NGTON B

CHESHIRE COUNTY 1 BOLTON MB

C Crown Copvrtght 1990 BOLTON MB

CITY OF SALFORD

lAreo B "^W^-x^W^a

g// DISMANTLED RAILWAY ±±

WIGAN MB

sis

WIGAN MB

WARRINGTON B 1UL-. CHESHIRE COUNTY

C) Crown Copyrtght 1990 WIGAN MB isr >< LOWTON ST MARY'S

P LANE HEAD

ST HELENS MB

x - / WARRINGTON B ,X C - I I -fe-F-ia-LJ*** CJ Crown CopyrtgM (990 CHESHIRE COUNTY ST HELENS MB

CJ Crown Copyrtghl 1991/\\^ WIGAN MB

Port Hou«« _ _ lrfT- l-It—QSfc

ST HELENS MB

i...... f.^. 1|iL _" [ ^ I | _-_—--Eos—f --Loncoshir . c*r~*~~ Roo. d

^5^

77T ^ O O O O O A '

(C) Crown Copyright 1991 ^J-, WIGAN MB

^ST HELENS MB

•«/" / r .. bLINGE CHAPEL END WEST LANCASHIRE WGAN %* \ * |DISTRICT \

i ST HELENS MB t KTNG.S MOSS ..-A

-.-w- i ST HELENS MB

V...ViiV. ' LANCASHIRE COUNTY

WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT /9A//vV£X ft CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Greater Manchester County Merseyside County Wigan MB Bolton MB Wigan MB St Helens MB 1 A H-ndsiord Word Hulton Park Word A Orrell Word Jillingc Chapel End CP Billinge and Seneley Green Ward Wigan MB City of Salford 9 A yldesley East Ward Little Hulton Ward Merseyside County Greater Manchester County 2 St Helens MB Wigan MB Wiqon MB City of SaHord B Seneley Gre«n CP Qrreil Ward 6 Tyldesley East Word Wolkden Soutfi Word Billing* and Seneley Green Ward

Wigan MB City of Salford Greater Manchester County Merseyside County A Tyldesley East Ward Worsley and Boothtown Ward A Wigan MB St Helens MB Orrell Ward Rainford CP City of Salford Wigan MB Ralnford Word folk den Soulh Ward Tyldeiley Easl Word Greater Manchester County Merseyside County 3 B Wigan MS SI Helens MB Wig on MB City of Solford Orrcll Ward Billing e Chapel End CP + Jedford-Astley Ward Worsley and Boothtown Billinge and Seneley Green 4 Word 10 Ward Wig an MB City of Salford Merseyside County Greater Manchester County 0 yldesley East Ward Walk den South Ward St Helens MB Wigan MB c Billing* Chopel End CP Or red Word Billlnge and Seneley Green Ward Greater Manchester County War ring ton B Merseyside County Wigan MS Greater Manchester County Culcheth and Glazebury CP D St Helens MB A Hope Carr Ward Wigan MB Culcheth Glazebury and E Orrell Ward Billinge Chapel End CP Croft Ward Billinge and Seneley Green Culcheth and Southworth CO Ward :tieshire County Greater Manchester County iVor ring ton B Wigan MB Lancashire County Lancashire County B ^ulcheth and Gtozebury CP Hope Carr Ward West Lancashire District Charley B Cuicheth Glazabury and A Wrlghtington CP CoppuD CP Croft Ward Wrightlngton Ward Coppufl South Ward 5 Culcheth and Southworth CO East CO Chorley West EO Greater Manchester County Cheshire County Greater Manchester County Lancashire County Wigan MB War ring ton 8 Wigan MB West Lancashire District c Hope Carr Ward Culchelh and Glazebury CP non parlshed area Wrlghtington CP Culcheth Glaiebury and II Langtree Ward Wrightlngton Ward Croft Ward Skelmersdale Cast CD Culcheth and Southworth ED Greater Manchester County Cheshire County Lancashire County Greater Manchester County Wigan MB Warring ton B West Lancashire District Wigan MS. D Bedford-Astley Ward Culcheth and Glazebury CP C Wrlghtlngton CP non parlshed area Culcheth Glazebury and Wrightlngton Ward Langtree Ward Croft Ward Skelmersdale Cast CD Culcheth and Southworth £0 Lancashire County Greater Manchester County Greater Manchester County Cheshire County West Lancashire District Wigan MB Wigan MB Worrlngton B U Wrightlngton CP Shevlngton CP Hope Carr Ward Culcneth and Glazebury CP Wrightlngton Ward Lanqtree Word CuJcheth Glazebury and Skelmersdale East ED Croft Ward Culcheth and Southworth ED Greater Manchester County Lancashire County wigan MB West Lancashire District Greater Manchester County Cheshire County E Shevlngton CP Wrightlngton CP Wigan MB War ring ton B Langtree Ward Wrightlngton Ward Hope Carr Word Croft CP Skelmersdale East EO B Culcheth Glazebury and Croft Word Culcheth and Southworth ED

A St Helens MB Wigan MB Haydock Ward Ashton-Galborne, Ward 7 Wigan MB R St Helens MB J\ 1 ^ Light show Ward Haydock 'Word N^ 1

A Wigan MB St Helens MB Lightshaw Ward Newton East Ward B St Helens MB Wigan MB 8 Newton East Ward Lightshaw Word

C Wigan MB St Helens MB D Light show Ward Newton East Ward ANNEX C

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIGAN AND BOLTON AND THE CITY OF SALFORD IN GREATER MANCHESTER, ST HELENS IN MERSEYSIDE, WARRINGTON IN CHESHIRE, AND CHORLEY AND WEST LANCASHIRE IN LANCASHIRE

Low Green Minor realignment of Paragraph 21 the boundary to Map 1 unite Nos 8-14 (even) Low Green in Bolton

Mort Lane Minor realignment of Paragraph 26 the boundary along Map 2 Cutacre Brook and the southern edge of the Wigan-Manchester railway

Boothstown Minor realignment of Paragraph 30 the boundary along Map 4 the northern edge of the East Lancashire Road to unite Boothstown in Salford

Ellenbrook Minor realignment of Paragraph 33 the boundary along a Map 3 dismantled railway, New City Road, Bridgewater Road, a minor road by Mosley Common and Ellen Brook as far as the East Lancashire Road Shevington Moor Minor realignment of Paragraph 44 the boundary to the Map 11 eastern side of the M6 to Junction 27, to the A5209 and to field boundaries south of The Rookery and Wrightington Pond

23 Glazebury/Kenyon Minor realignment of Paragraphs 55 and 56 the boundary to the Maps 5 and 6 Pennington Brook, the southern edge of the East Lancashire Road, a dismantled railway, the southern edge of the Liverpool-Manchester railway and the A579

Kings Moss/Billinge Minor realignment of Paragraph 62 Hill the boundary to Map 10 transfer Kings Moss and open countryside to the east as far as Upholland Road to West Lancashire

Billinge Minor realignment of Paragraphs 66-68 the boundary to the Map 9 Down Brook, field boundaries and wigan Road as far as Mount Pleasant Farm

Haydock Park Minor realignment of Paragraphs 73-77 the boundary to Maps 7 and 8 unite Haydock Park in St Helens and Park House Farm in Wigan and to use the eastern edge of the railway between Golborne Junction and Parkside Manchester Junction

24