LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF WEST YORKSHIRE THE CITY OF LEEDS Boundaries with:- HARROGATE & SELBY (NORTH YORKSHIRE) HARROGATE BRADFORD SELBY REPORT NO.606 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 606 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals Mr G Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF WEST YORKSHIRE THE CITY OF LEEDS AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH HARROGATE AND SELBY IN NORTH YORKSHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Leeds city Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Leeds as part of our review of the Metropolitan County of West Yorkshire and its Metropolitan Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan District Councils; the County and District Councils bordering the Metropolitan County; Parish Councils in the adjoining districts; the Local Authority Associations; Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities and statutory undertakers which might have an interest, as well as to the English Tourist Board, the local- press, and the local television and radio stations serving the area. 2. The Metropolitan District Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other principal authorities, to assist us in publishing 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. The Councils were also asked to ensure that our consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those involved with services such as the police and the administration of justice. 3. A period of seven months from the date of our letter was allowed for all local 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 City's boundary were desirable and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US 4. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987 we received representations from Leeds City Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Selby District Council and North Yorkshire County Council. We also received representations from other interested bodies, and residents of the local authorities concerned. 5. We also received submissions suggesting changes to Leeds' boundaries with Bradford, Wakefield and Kirklees. These have been or will be considered separately as part of our reviews of those areas. 6. We consider that, taken as a whole, the present area of Leeds is apt for securing effective and convenient local government, and we have decided not to make any proposals for major change to its boundaries. Our proposals relate only to the minor realignments.described in this report. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS RADICAL CHANGE 7. A member of the public had suggested the creation of a new district comprising the former Borough of Pudsey, currently in Leeds, and the former Urban Districts of Horsforth and Aireborough, currently in Bradford. 8. We felt that no evidence had been produced to suggest that the present pattern of boundaries was not conducive to effective and convenient local government, or that there was any strong local support for such a change. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of this suggestion. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN LEEDS AND HARROGATE (a) Wetherby 9. The Wetherby and District Study Group had suggested the transfer of Wetherby District Ward, containing nine parishes, from Leeds to Harrogate in North Yorkshire. The Study Group stated that the villages in the vicinity of Wetherby have a close affinity with it, and that the current boundary severs communities. It also claimed that Harrogate is easier to reach than Leeds; that local health authorities allow residents to go to Leeds; and that rate increases in Harrogate are lower than in Leeds. The Study Group also criticised Leeds in respect of its housing, education, planning and social services functions; it stated that Leeds had not built any council houses in Wetherby ward since 1974, and that the Leeds education system was biased towards its urban population, at the expense of rural areas. It also felt that North Yorkshire authorities had a better understanding of consultation procedures in respect of planning matters, and that funding of social services in Leeds was politically influenced. 10. The Study Group's suggestion was supported by Wetherby Town Council (by a majority of one) and two members of the public. It was opposed by seven parish councils in Wetherby ward, the Wetherby Labour Party and eleven members of the public. The main grounds of opposition were, first, that Wetherby's affinities lay with Leeds in terms of employment, housing, and health and social services and, second, the possible loss of concessionary fares on public transport should Wetherby Ward transfer to Harrogate. 11. The Elmet Conservative Association submitted an alternative suggestion which would involve the transfer of six parishes, said to have an affinity with Wetherby, from Harrogate to Leeds. 12. We gave very careful consideration to the Study Group's suggestion. However, we noted the lack of widespread public support for the suggestion and were impressed by the case put forward by those who had opposed it, and who had emphasised Wetherby Ward's links with Leeds. We also noted that seven out of the nine parish councils which would be affected by the suggestion were against it, and that Wetherby Town Council itself had only voted by a majority of one to support it. Accordingly, we concluded that there was no evidence of any general dissatisfaction with the services provided to the area by Leeds. We also concluded that there was no evidence to justify endorsing the Elmet Conservative Association's suggestion. We- considered whether it would be feasible to transfer the more rural part of the Wetherby ward to Harrogate, leaving the town in Leeds. However, as this would involve splitting a parish, which we did not feel would be conducive to effective and convenient local government, we did not pursue it. On the evidence before us, therefore we took an interim decision to make no proposal in respect of Wetherby Ward. (b) The A1(T) 13. We considered the possible use of the A1(T) north of Bramham as a boundary between Leeds and Harrogate. However, we felt that while the Al would produce a good boundary, its use would not significantly improve effective and convenient local government. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal. (c) Throstle Nest 14. Leeds had suggested amending its boundary with Harrogate in the vicinity of Throstle Nest Close, with the object of uniting an area of continuous residential development in Leeds. 15. Objections to the suggestion were received from Harrogate Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council and the Shipton and Ripon Conservative Association. The grounds given were that the majority of residents in the affected area wished to remain in Harrogate. 16. We felt that as most of the development was already in Leeds, it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government to unite the area within that authority. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal. (d) St David's Road/Carr Bank 17. Both Leeds and Harrogate suggested realigning the boundary at St David's Road and Carr Bank to unite two housing developments in Leeds. 18. We considered that as the larger parts of both developments are already in Leeds it would be sensible to unite them in that authority. We decided therefore to adopt the joint suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor amendment to remove a stretch of defaced boundary. (e) Riverside Park 19. Leeds had suggested realigning the boundary in the Riverside Park area, to unite an area of continuous housing development in Leeds. 20. Objections to the suggestion were received from Harrogate Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council and the Skipton and Ripon Conservative Association. The objectors claimed that the residents affected by the suggestion•wished to remain in Harrogate. 21. We felt that, as the larger part of the development was already in Leeds, it would be in the interest of effective and convenient local government from the point of both service delivery and electoral representation to unite it within the City. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor amendment to remove a stretch of undefined boundary. (f) River Wharfe 22. Leeds had suggested changes to its boundary with Harrogate in several places, realigning it to the main course of the River Wharfe. The suggestion was supported by Harrogate and North Yorkshire County Council. 23. We noted that the boundary in this area generally follows the River Wharfe and felt that it would be sensible to realign the boundary along the existing course of the river. We therefore decided to adopt the Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to following a centre of river realignment. (g) Dunkeswick Moor 24. Leeds had suggested transferring Dunkeswick Moor to Harrogate by realigning the boundary along the course of the River Wharfe. The suggestion was supported by Harrogate. 25. We noted that, for the most part, the boundary in this area follows the River Wharfe and felt that the river would also provide a good boundary in the vicinity of the moor.