LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF MERSEYSIDE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF SEFTON Boundaries with: WIRRAL WEST LANCASHIRE WEST LANCASHIRE SEFT KNOWSLEY WIRRA LIVERPOOL 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 WEST LANCASHIRE 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 Southport 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 Metropolitan County 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, Formby, Hightown, Lydiate and Maghull. 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, Birkdale and Ainsdale. 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 Bootle 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 Ormskirk 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 Aintree; and Maghull Town Council, who also asked for a public local enquiry into the issue of Southport, as did Little Altcar 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