LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

REVIEW OF

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SEFTON

Boundaries with: WIRRAL WEST

WEST LANCASHIRE SEFT

KNOWSLEY

WIRRA REPORT NO. 664 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO 664 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB

MEMBERS Mr G 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 MERSEYSIDE

THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SEFTON AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL IN MERSEYSIDE AND THE DISTRICT OF IN LANCASHIRE

THE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

1 . This report contains our final proposals for the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton's boundaries with the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral in Merseyside and with the District of West Lancashire in Lancashire. It includes our consideration of the question of whether or not should remain in Sefton. Our recommendations in respect of Sefton's boundaries with the City of Liverpool and with the Metropolitan District of Knowsley will be set out in separate reports.

2. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us at each stage of the review. Our report explains how we arrived at our proposals.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE START OF THE REVIEW

3. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council announcing the start of a review of the of Merseyside and the districts within it under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972.

4. Copies of the letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan Districts; to the county and district councils bordering the metropolitan area; to parishes in Sefton and the adjoining districts; to the local authority associations; to Members of

1 Parliament with constituency interests; to the headquarters of the main political parties; to the local press, television and radio stations; and a number of other interested persons and organisations.

5. The Metropolitan District Councils were requested, in co- operation as necessary with other local authorities, to insert a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers to give wide publicity to the start of the review in the areas concerned.

6. A period of seven months from the date of our letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their detailed views on whether changes to Sefton's 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.

SUGGESTIONS FOR RADICAL CHANGE

Our initial consideration

7. In response to our letter of 1 September 1987, we received submissions relating to the boundaries covered by this report from Sefton and Lancashire County Council; from parish and town councils within Sefton; from local authorities in the surrounding areas; and from interested bodies and members of the public, most notably from people in Southport, , Hightown, and .

8. Many representations were received in respect of Southport. In particular, the "Southport Out of Sefton" Campaign made a strong case for Southport's separation from the Borough on the grounds that there was no compatibility between the north and the south of Sefton. The Campaign suggested that Southport should be transferred from Sefton to become either a separate metropolitan district in Merseyside or a new district in Lancashire. Over 10,000 representations were received in support of the Campaign's suggestion, of which 70% were in the form of printed standard letters or newspaper forms. The majority of the representations came from Southport, and .

9. Other representations sought the return of Lydiate and Maghull to Lancashire. The Clerk to Lydiate Parish Council suggested that Lydiate and Maghull should be returned to Lancashire on the grounds that these areas had greater affinities with West Lancashire than with in Sefton. We received 20 letters supporting this suggestion from members of the public who said that they had nothing in common with the rest of Merseyside and that they considered themselves to be Lancastrians, not Liverpudlians.

Provisional conclusions

10. After considering all the representations and submissions received, we wrote to the Merseyside authorities on 12 January 1990, stating that we had given initial consideration to our review of Merseyside and the districts within it, and that we had reached provisional conclusions on the future of Merseyside as a whole. We had received representations on the boundaries of the Borough of Knowsley and noted that the Liverpool/Knowsley boundary was poorly defined. We therefore felt minded to propose the transfer of significant areas in Knowsley to neighbouring authorities. That would have left Knowsley as too small to be a viable metropolitan authority and we therefore suggested the possibility that it be abolished. We discuss the issue of Knowsley in our report on its boundaries.

11. In response to representations about the future of Southport, Birkdale and Ainsdale, we inclined to the view that this area should be transferred out of Sefton. However, we did not consider that the area was either sufficiently bound to the rest of Merseyside, or sufficiently large, to form a separate metropolitan district. We were therefore minded to propose the transfer of Southport, Birkdale and Ainsdale to Lancashire, to become a new district within that County. We did not accept that such a strong case had been made in the case of Formby and we were therefore minded not to propose the transfer of Formby and Hightown out of Sefton. Equally, we considered that although Lydiate and Maghull appeared to have some affinity with in Lancashire, the public response was relatively small and no convincing case for change had been made.

12. Normally at that stage, we would have issued draft proposals in detailed form. However, in the case of Merseyside, we had decided to set out our thinking less formally, as described above, in order to stimulate local debate, thereby enabling a further exchange of views to take place and to provide a basis for seeking the further information we would need before reaching firm conclusions and issuing formal draft proposals. Sefton was invited to amplify the material it had already submitted about Southport, Formby and Hightown, and also to provide information about Lydiate and Maghull and the provision of local services and the pattern of community life within the Borough. Responses to our letter were invited by 28 February 1990.

Southport

Response to our letter of 12 January 1990

13. We received a large and varied response to our letter of 12 January 1990. Sefton objected to our provisional conclusions and provided further information in a document entitled "The Case For The Retention of Southport within Sefton". This addressed the issues of the wishes of the people, the pattern of community life and the provision of services in Sefton, the three criteria to which we must have regard when formulating proposals for change in accordance with the guidance contained in Department of the Environment Circulars 33/78 and 20/86. Sefton's document set out the effects that it considered Southport's transfer would have on the provision of services both in Southport itself and throughout the Borough generally.

14. Objections were also received from Lancashire County Council; the Parish Councils of Melling, Sefton, Thornton and ; and Maghull Town Council, who also asked for a public local enquiry into the issue of Southport, as did Parish Council. West Lancashire District Council said that it was not opposed to the creation of a new district of Southport in Lancashire, but stipulated that none of its own area should be lost in the process.

15. We also received a range of views from local elected representatives and political organisations. Opposition to the transfer of Southport to Lancashire came from the Southport Conservative Association, the Bootle Conservative Association, the Bootle Constituency Labour Party, the Crosby Constituency Conservative Association, and Councillor Ronald Watson. The Southport Liberal Democrats supported our provisional conclusion, as did Mr Ronnie Fearn MP and Councillor George Halliwell. The Southport Green Party, whilst in favour of the establishment of Southport as a separate authority within Merseyside, did not support its transfer to Lancashire.

16. A number of responses were received from public and other bodies. West Lancashire Health Authority commented that close links already existed between Southport and West Lancashire in a number of specific areas, and that these and other links were being developed as part of the changing pattern of health care provision. The Health Authority thought that the development of closer links would be facilitated by Southport's transfer into Lancashire. Conversely, Southport and Formby Health Authority saw no justification for transfer, claiming that health care arrangements would be significantly more complex and less effective were Southport to be transferred to Lancashire.

17. Southport and Formby Community Health Council opposed any change, as did the Sefton Family Practitioner Committee. However, our provisional conclusion was supported by the Lancashire Family Practitioner Committee and the Churchtown Health Centre.

18. The Merseyside Association of Local Councils opposed the transfer of Southport from Sefton, as did Borough Council, Metropolitan Borough Council, Authority, the Merseyside Probation Service, the Coroner for Sefton and the Chairman of the Magistrates of the North Sefton Petty Sessional Division. We also received objections from the Federated Union of Managerial and Professional Officers, South Sefton Chamber of Commerce, Southport Trades Council, the North West Regional Council of the Trades Union Congress, the National Union of Public Employees, the Lancashire Association of Trades Councils, Sefton Association of Head Teachers, Liverpool Polytechnic School of Social Services, and Merseyside Arts.

19. We were sent details of various campaigns and polls which had been carried out by the Southport Visiter, Bootle Times, Crosby Herald and Formby Times newspapers in their respective circulation areas. In the poll conducted by the Southport Visiter, 1,531 respondents had favoured Southport's transfer to Lancashire, and 1,740 had opposed it. In the various other polls 182 people had favoured Southport's transfer to Lancashire, while 906 opposed it, and a further 224 had favoured Southport becoming a separate metropolitan district within Merseyside.

20. The Crosby Constituency Conservative Association and Aintree Parish Council both organised campaigns opposing the proposal to transfer Southport out of Sefton. As a result we received 6,017 proforma letters objecting to radical change in the area. The Conservative Senior Citizen and the Conservative "Southport Beware" Campaigns sought a public enquiry into Southport's future, and were supported by 1,031 proforma letters from Southport residents. 21 . We received 516 individual representations from Southport residents, of whom 130 favoured Southport's transfer and 386 opposed it. A further 245 representations were received from areas outside Southport, principally Aintree, Bootle, Crosby and Formby. Of these, 8 supported Southport's transfer while 237 opposed it. We also received 26 representations requesting a public enquiry and 33 seeking metropolitan district status for Southport.

Our further consideration

22. The response to our 12 January letter had shown there to be a significant body of opinion within Southport which sought the town's transfer from Merseyside to Lancashire, on the grounds that their community of interest was with Lancashire and that there was general dissatisfaction with the services provided to them by Sefton. However, a large number of respondents sought to retain the town within Sefton, for the converse reason that their community of interest was with the rest of Borough; that such a change would entail disruption to the existing Sefton services; and that the town's social, transport and economic links were with the rest of Merseyside. This indicated to us that public opinion within Southport, and Sefton as a whole, was more evenly divided than had appeared to be the case when our provisional conclusion was issued.

23. Although Southport's geographical position at the extreme northern edge of both Sefton and Merseyside suggested closer affinities with Lancashire, a detailed examination of transport links and travel to work and shopping patterns between Sefton and Lancashire contradicted this impression.

24. The boundary between Sefton and West Lancashire, in the vicinity of Southport, falls within an extensive area of mossland which has Green Belt designation, and as such there are tight restrictions on development. There are only two A-class road connections between the areas, the A570(T) and the A565(T). Lancashire County Council claimed that there was little cross- border association or movement between communities. In our view, therefore, Southport remains to a large degree physically separate from Lancashire.

25. By contrast, there are strong links between Southport and the rest of Sefton and Merseyside, and communications by rail and road run in a predominantly north-south direction. Improvements to existing routes and the proposed new road which would effectively link Southport and Formby to the rest of Sefton and the M57, indicated to us that Southport is fully integrated into Sefton's transport system.

26. Sef ton's submission demonstrated that Southport is relatively self-contained in terms of shopping, employment and leisure facilities, but that there is nevertheless a sizeable interaction with the rest of Merseyside. The 1981 travel-to-work statistics indicated that 60% of residents worked in the town, 18% worked in the rest of Sefton and Merseyside, but only 11 % in Lancashire and Greater . reported that commuting from Southport to Liverpool and Bootle had increased since 1981, and that links with the rest of Merseyside were improving.

27. Whilst Southport appears relatively self-contained at a local level, at a more strategic level it seems to us to have stronger links with Sefton and Merseyside than with Lancashire.

28. The information we received on service provision within Sefton and Lancashire indicated that, whilst there would be some transitional costs in the short to medium term, there would be no major cost benefits for most services if Southport were to become a district in Lancashire. We also took the view that, in the event of transfer to Lancashire, some difficulties could arise in the provision of education, social services and health care for Southport's residents.

8 29. We considered that the transfer of Southport to Lancashire would require some adjustments to the County Council's education service. Southport contains almost half of Sefton's special schools and the transfer of these to Lancashire could have an adverse effect on the provision of special education within the remainder of the Borough.

30. Both Sefton and Lancashire claimed that the transfer of Southport would create significant problems for the structure and operation of their social services organisations and could result in a mis-match between need and provision.

31 . We took the view that the transfer of Southport would require some reassessment by Lancashire of the split of the County into sub-divisions for social services purposes. Difficulties might also arise over Southport's accessibility to the Lancashire Social Services divisional headquarters in Preston, and the ability of that department to establish and maintain close liaison with an additional health authority. The need for close liaison between local authoritites and health authorities, in the light of new arrangements for providing health facilities, was stressed by Southport and Formby Health Authority in its representation objecting to Southport's transfer.

Our interim decision

32. As well as addressing the issues of the wishes of the people, the pattern of community life and the provision of services, the three criteria set out in our guidelines from the Secretary of State, we also had regard to the constraints of paragraph 7 of the Department of the Environment circular 20/86 that "...the abolition or creation of a principal area would be appropriate only where the Commission consider that the present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government..." 33. On the available evidence, we concluded that the present arrangements for the provision of effective and convenient local government had not failed and that opportunities for building links between Southport and Lancashire were limited. We took the view that the transfer of Southport, Birkdale and Ainsdale to Lancashire would be disruptive and not in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We decided, therefore, to take an interim decision not to propose radical change.

34. We acknowledged that there was a strong body of opinion in Southport in favour of Southport's transfer, expressed through the "Southport out of Sefton Campaign", but considered that this was counterbalanced by the large number of representations supporting the retention of Southport in Sefton.

35. we also decided to treat the issue of whether Southport should remain in Sefton, or become a new district in Lancashire, separately from other boundary issues relating to Sefton. In order to resolve uncertainty locally over the future of Southport, we issued a letter on 14 May 1991 summarising the response to our letter of 12 January 1990 and setting out our interim decision not to propose radical change to Sefton Borough Council's boundary with Lancashire. Responses were invited by 9 July 1991.

Response to our letter of 14 May 1991

36. The response to our letter of 14 May 1991 included representations from Sefton and Lancashire, supporting our interim decision, and around 10,000 representations from Southport residents supporting the Southport out of Sefton Campaign. In addition we received 200 representations supporting our interim decision.

10 Confirmation of our Interim Decision

37. We considered that no new evidence had come to light from members of the public, the Southport out of Sefton Campaign or from other persons and bodies who made representations in this latest round of consultation. We recognised the strong feelings amongst a large number of local residents that Southport is a separate community and that there is an historical identity with Lancashire. Many of the representations sought the recreation of the former (which is beyond our powers to propose) and did not consider the potential effects of this upon the rest of Sefton and Merseyside. Moreover, we remained concerned that such a major step would inevitably be disruptive and costly and that problems would arise with effective service delivery. We decided therefore to make no proposals for radical change to Southport in this review.

Formbv and Hightown

Response to our letter of 12 January 1990

38. We received about 80 letters from residents of Formby and Hightown and adjacent areas. These referred to the issue of Southport but, overall, sought Southport's retention in Sefton and Merseyside. Some correspondents noted the link between Formby and Southport, which they did not wish to see broken through the transfer of Southport. Others suggested the creation of a new metropolitan district in Merseyside incorporating Southport, Formby and Hightown.

Interim Decision

39. We felt that this review was not the appropriate occasion for major change and took an interim decision to make no proposals for change.

11 Lvdiate and Maghull

Response to our letter of 12 January 1990

40. We received about 130 letters from members of the public living in Lydiate and Maghull who wanted to return to Lancashire and 38 letters from residents who wished to stay in Sefton.

Interim Decision

41. The number of letters received in response to our letter of 12 January 1990 was relatively small and we felt that no new evidence had been presented to us to show that the areas concerned had greater affinities with West Lancashire than with the rest of Sefton and Merseyside. The transfer of these areas would amount to major change affecting West Lancashire and Sefton which could not be justified. We decided therefore to take an interim decision to make no proposal.

42. Accordingly, we issued a letter on 6 March 1992 indicating our final decision on Southport and inviting responses by 23 April 1992 on our interim decisions in respect of Formby, Hightown, Lydiate and Maghull. (This letter also gave our draft proposals and interim decisions for minor boundary changes to Sefton's boundaries with West Lancashire and Wirral in the Mersey Estuary - paragraphs 45-65 below.)

Final Decision on Radical Change

43. We received a very limited response to our letter of 6 March 1992. Sefton said it was content to note our decision as its representations had been taken into account and Lancashire reiterated its support for our decision to propose no radical change. Little Altcar Parish Council said it would continue to support our interim decision, but added that if at some stage before the final report was published we decided to take Southport out of Sefton they would not want to be left in any new

12 area which would tie them to Bootle. Only eight members of the public, including a Formby resident, opposed our decision to make no radical change.

44. In view of the very limited response to our letter, we decided to confirm as final our decision to make no proposals for radical change and that Southport, Birkdale, Ainsdale, Formby, Hightown, Lydiate and Maghull should therefore remain within Sefton.

PROPOSED MINOR CHANGES TO SEFTON'S BOUNDARIES

THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN SEFTON AND WEST LANCASHIRE

45. At the initial stage of the review, we identified a number of anomalies along the boundary at Southport between Fiddler's Ferry in the north and Woodvale in the south and suggested that the boundary would be improved by taking into Sefton a strip of West Lancashire. Subsequently, we noted that anomalies occurred further south along the boundary at Sutton House Farm/Ravens Bank and at Altcar Road/Lord Sefton Way. The most significant of the anomalies in the Fiddler's Ferry to Woodvale section of the boundary were the location of Southport Crematorium and a Southport School in West Lancashire.

46. We noted that residential properties and a new business had been developed in the vicinity of the boundary at Mill. This development is contained entirely within Sefton's boundaries and there are no plans for it to cross the existing boundary. We considered that a more modest approach to the boundary was appropriate, and in our letter of 6 March 1992 we identified a number of boundary anomalies.

13 Pumping Station

Draft Proposal

47. The current boundary, which divides the pumping station serving the drainage system of West Lancashire is defaced and is not tied to physical features. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary so as to unite the pumping station in West Lancashire.

Final proposal

48. Lancashire CC, West Lancashire DC and the North West Region of the National Rivers Authority supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have therefore decided to confirm it as final.

Land Houses

Interim Decision

49. Although the most direct access to Land Houses is from Sefton, the current boundary places the Poultry Houses, Holly Farm and the Cricket Ground in Lancashire. However, we considered the existing boundary to be satisfactory, and, as there appeared to be no suitable alternative, we decided to take an interim decision to make no proposal.

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

14 Boundary Brook

Draft Proposal

51. The current boundary is undefined and we decided to issue a draft proposal to realign it to the east side of Boundary Brook to tie it to a physical feature.

Final proposal

52. Lancashire CC and West Lancashire DC supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

Southport Crematorium/Kew Mill

Interim Decision

53. This area is an extension of the built-up area of Southport but lies within West Lancashire. Whilst we considered the area looked to Southport and Sefton for many services, and the crematorium clearly served the town, we also considered that the area shared many of the physical features of neighbouring developments in West Lancashire. As the existing boundary is clearly defined, and to unite the area in Sefton would involve the transfer of substantial numbers of residents and a large portion of agricultural land, we decided to take an interim decision to make no proposal.

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

15 Christ the King Secondary School

Draft Proposal

55. Sefton said it had considered suggesting the transfer of this School, which currently lies in West Lancashire but which is administered by Sefton, into Sefton. Although Sefton did not actually submit a formal proposal on these lines, the current boundary divides properties and isolates in West Lancashire a small stretch of the newly constructed road, Bentham's Way, as well as the older Moss Road. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary to the southern side of Bentham1 s Way, so as to transfer the school and its playing fields to Sefton.

Final Proposal

56. Lancashire CC and West Lancashire DC supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

New Cut Lane and Segar Lane

Interim Decision

57. These developments extend outwards from Sefton with no obvious break to reflect the current boundary. We considered that the existing boundary was satisfactory and, as there appeared to be no suitable alternative boundary, we decided to take an interim decision to make no proposal.

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

16 Caravan Park, Moor Lane

Draft Proposal

59. The current boundary is undefined. As the caravan park appeared to look to the leisure and of Southpbrt, we decided to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary round the edge of the caravan park and its associated buildings to unite them in Sefton.

Final proposal

60. Both Lancashire CC and West Lancashire DC opposed our draft proposal. Lancashire said that the caravans are mainly owner- occupied by people with Lancashire affinities and that the owners do not in fact have close links with Southport. West Lancashire DC felt that our proposed new boundary was no better than the existing boundary. However, we received no objections from any of the caravan owners themselves and, in the absence of a suitable alternative boundary, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

Sutton House Farm and Ravens Bank

Draft Proposal

61. We felt that the properties of Sutton House Farm and Ravens Bank looked more to Southport for their services. As the current boundary is slightly defaced, we decided to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary to Brook to tie it to a prominent physical feature.

Final proposal

62. Downholland Parish Council supported our draft proposal saying that the owners of the two properties affected had raised no objections to the proposal. West Lancashire DC and Little

17 Altcar Parish Council also supported our draft proposal. However, it was opposed by Lancashire CC on the grounds that there was no justification for changing the boundary which was well known and accepted by the rural community. A resident of the properties affected subsequently wrote to us opposing the proposal but gave no specific reasons.

63. It still appeared to us that the two properties looked to Southport for services and facilities and that Downholland Brook provided a readily identifiable boundary. As the local district and parish councils concerned have supported the draft proposal, we have decided to confirm it as final.

Altcar Road/Lord Sefton Way

Draft Proposal

64. The current boundary is defaced and forms an awkward salient. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to realign the boundary to Downholland Brook leaving Altcar Road in Sefton and uniting Lord Sefton Way in West Lancashire.

Final proposal

65. Both West Lancashire DC and Little Altcar Parish Council supported our draft proposal. We received no other representations and have decided to confirm it as final.

SEFTON'S BOUNDARY WITH THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

Interim Decision

66. In our view, changes to this short stretch of boundary would be justified only in the context of a review of seaward boundaries in the Mersey Estuary. As we received no submissions, we took an interim decision to make no proposal.

18 67. We received no representations and have decided to confirm our interim decision as final.

ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES

68. Details of electoral changes we recommend as consequential to our proposals are attached at Annex B. Only a minimal number of electors are affected by the changes and we do not expect any adverse effect on electoral representation at either district or county level.

CONCLUSIONS

69. We believe that our final proposals, which are summarised in Annex C to this report, are in the interests of effective and convenient local govenment, and we commend them to you.

PUBLICATION

70. A separate letter is being sent to West Lancashire District Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Knowsley and Wirral, the City of Liverpool, and Lancashire County Council, 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 maps attached at Annex A illustrating the proposed changes, are being sent to all those who received our interim decision letter of 14 May 1991 and draft proposals letter of 6 March 1992.

19 Signed: K F J ENNAL'S (Chairman)

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Commission Secretary 18 June T992 ANN/EX A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW

SEFTON MB

AFFECTING WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other existing Boundary Other proposed Boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM

Mop

Map 2

Mop 4 WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT

Ul w wX o:

SEFTON MB WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT

Crossens Pumping Station

SEFTON MB

" \% .4 V-. '/'.' (cl Crown Copyright 1992 SEFTON MB

NORTH CP

WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT!

SCARISBRICK CP WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT

fltU? C\ Crown Copyright 1992 SEFTON MB

r._. fe=j uU, — •—-"- —I i WEST LANCASHIRE Area A| DISTRICT fj

Havens /—-, = Bank LJ = DOWNHOLLAND CP

WEST LANCASHIRE DISTRICT

GREAT ALTCAR CP

Area B|

"-.. "i.-.. •« ^* • . W -\ ' ltri*l E.I.It : """vJ^VTjT^A^ SEFTON MB

Cl Crown Copyright 1992 CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA NUMBER REF. FROM TO:

Merseyside County Lancashire County Setton MB West Lancashire District A Non-parished Area CP Meals Ward North Meols Ward West Lancashire North ED

Lancashire County Merseyside County West Lancashire District Sefton MB A North Meols CP Non-parished Area North Meols Ward Ward West Lancashire North ED

Lancashire County Merseyside County West Lancashire District Sefton MB CP Non-parished Area Scarisbrick Ward Norwood Ward West Lancashire North ED

Lancashire Coun ty Merseyside County West Lancashire District Sefton MB CP Non—parished Area Halsall Ward Kew Ward West Lancashire South ED

Lancashire County Merseyside County West Lancashire District Sefton MB Halsall CP Non-parished Area Halsall Ward Ainsdale Ward West Lancashire South ED

Lancashire County Merseyside County West Lancashire District Sefton MB A Downholland CP Non-parished Area Downholland Ward Ward West Lancashire South ED

Merseyside County Lancashire County Sefton MB West Lancashire District A Non-parished Area Downholland CP Ravenmeo1s Ward Downholland Ward West Lancashire South ED

Merseyside County Lancashire County Sefton MB West Lancashire District Non-parished Area CP RavenmeoIs Ward Downholland Ward West Lancashire South ED ANNEX C

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES BETWEEN METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SEFTON AND WEST LANCASHIRE IN LANCASHIRE

Crossens Pumping Minor realignment of Map 1 Station boundary to unite pumping station in Lancashire

Boundary Brook Minor realignment of Map 2 boundary to the east side of Boundary Brook Christ the King Realignment of Map 3 Secondary School boundary to the southern side of Bentham's Way to transfer school and playing fields to Sefton Caravan Park, Realignment of Map 4 Moor Lane boundary round the edge of caravan park to unite it in Sefton Sutton House Farm Realignment of Map 5 boundary to Downholland Brook transferring properties of Sutton House Farm and Ravens Bank to Sefton

Altcar Road/Lord Realignment of Map 6 Sefton Way boundary to Downholland Brook leaving Altcar Road in Sefton and uniting Lord Sefton Way in Lancashire

20