West and Labour Group and Local Campaign Forum

Response to draft proposals for the local government boundary review in Cheshire West and Chester 1. Introduction 1.1. Generally, the Labour Group support the implementation of single member wards in Cheshire West and Chester.

1.2. The rationale for this is that local government elections in Cheshire West and Chester are every four years as opposed to the system where multi‐members wards have one member up for election each year on a rolling cycle.

1.3. Under the same circumstances in Scotland the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission have been carried out in full so that all wards where elections take place in four‐year cycles are always single member only.

1.4. It is widely recognised that a single point of accountability provides a strong link between the councillor and the residents they serve.

1.5. In considering its final warding pattern, it is hoped that the Commission will carefully consider the merits of all amendments from political parties, community groups and residents that propose wards with the lowest possible number of councillors per ward. Especially where this better reflects a local community’s identity and where it can increase access and enhance understanding for residents when they wish to engage with the council and its elected representatives. 2. Chester 2.1. In Chester, the Commission has chosen to combine existing single member wards into large wards. Generally, the Labour Group would like to see the Commission consider smaller units to encourage greater local accountability and make access to local governance clearer for local communities.

2.2. The Labour Group fully support the implementation of single member wards in Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath.

2.3. These new wards will provide a much greater sense of identity for those communities and a single point of local accountability, within Parish boundaries.

2.4. South of the River Dee, the Commission have proposed a three‐member ward on the grounds of good electoral equality. This proposal hangs on the premise that the housing types across the area are similar and that residents share the same services.

2.5. The Labour Group does not support this proposal and instead recommends a two‐member Overleigh Ward (comprising of Handbridge, Westminster Park and Curzon Park), plus a single member Lache ward based on the existing Lache ward boundaries.

2.6. This proposal is entirely feasible and would have very little impact on the variance of electoral equality.

2.7. In the Commission’s report for their draft proposals, four wards across the Borough have not seen any change to their boundaries. Three of them are single member wards. The Labour Group proposes that the Commission considers the same arrangements for Lache.

2.8. No changes to the current Lache boundaries (JL1, JL2 & JL3) would result in 3966 electors per councillor, which is well within the acceptable range. This would leave the remaining Overleigh Ward with 4099 electors per councillor.

2.9. The rationale for recommendation is based on a comparison between the existing Lache ward and the existing Handbridge Parks ward. 2.10. In Lache almost 60% of the residents live in the most deprived areas (quintiles 1 and 2 IMD). Almost 60% of children suffer poverty, and in some local primary school classes, up to 63% are eligible for free school meals. 20.9% of residents claim council Tax benefit and over 50% of older people live in areas where income deprivation is high.

2.11. In Handbridge Parks 100% residents live in the least deprived areas (quintiles 3,4,5 IMD) and just 7.3% of children are eligible for free school meals. Only 8.7% of residents claim Council Tax benefit.

2.12. In paragraph 61 of the report, the Commission suggest that residents in Lache will share services with the new residents of the Wrexham Road development. This is unlikely for the majority of residents of the main Lache estate, who are much more likely to use Saltney. A considerable number of Lache children also attend St Davids School in Flintshire rather than schools in Handbridge. The majority of Lache residents do not visit the shops at Westminster Park either and would have to take a circuitous journey to reach new provision on Wrexham Road.

2.13. Adding Lache to the existing Handbridge Park ward will not aid convenient and local government for Lache residents. This will not help the council to carry out its responsibility to the residents of the ward effectively. For these reasons, the Labour Group strongly recommends altering its proposals for this area. 3. 3.1. In Ellesmere Port, the Labour Group welcome the increase in single member wards from 4 to 6 as these will provide a single point of local accountability and a defined area for local representation.

3.2. For the proposed new wards of Great Sutton, Wolverham, Whitby Groves and Whitby Heath we suggest a slight name change to reflect local identity.

3.3. The Great Sutton ward contains communities from both Great Sutton and part of the central area of Little Sutton. To reflect this the Labour Group proposes the Ward to be named Sutton Villages.

3.4. The proposed Wolverham ward encompasses part of the Wolverham area and the whole of Stanney Grange. To reflect this the Labour Group proposes the Ward to be named Wolverham & Stanney Grange.

3.5. The Whitby Heath and Whitby Groves wards are misnamed and should be reversed. As it stands, the Groves are in the Whitby Heath Ward. Whilst Whitby Heath Primary School is in the proposed Whitby Groves ward. The actual Whitby Heath is known locally as Whitby Sports & Social Club and The Groves.

3.6. The Labour Group is disappointed in the draft proposal for the Overpool & Grange ward as this has made a ward comprising of areas with differing community identities and many of the town’s most deprived areas into one ward ‐ highlighted by the following evidence from the 2015 Indices of Multiple Deprivation in Cheshire West & Chester:

 The most severe living environment deprivation occurs in the ward Ellesmere Port Town

 The most severe crime deprivation occurs in the wards of Ellesmere Port Town, Grange, Netherpool, Rossmore, St Paul’s, Sutton, Whitby

 The most severe health deprivation occurs in the wards of Ellesmere Port Town, Rossmore.

 The most severe health deprivation occurs in the wards of Ellesmere Port Town, Rossmore.

 Employment deprivation tends to affect the urban wards of Cheshire West and Chester. The most severe employment deprivation occurs in the areas of LSOAs in Ellesmere Port Town, Grange, Netherpool, Rossmore, St Paul’s.

 The most severe income deprivation affecting older people occurs in the wards of Ellesmere Port Town, Grange, Netherpool, Rossmore, St Paul’s.

 The most severe income deprivation affecting children occurs in the wards of Ellesmere Port Town, Grange, Netherpool, Rossmore, St Paul’s.  Income deprivation tends to affect the urban wards of Cheshire West and Chester, including LSOAs in Ellesmere Port Town, Grange, Netherpool, Rossmore, St Pauls.

3.7. Other than these connections of deprivation there are no communities of interest between the Overpool and Ellesmere Port Town areas and the Labour Group agree that this should not be the sole reason form forming the ward on these boundaries but understands that to improve the community of interest and disperse the areas of deprivation into other wards would involve greater redrawing of the ward boundaries in that area.

3.8. The Labour Group respectfully asks that the Commission rethinks the draft proposal for the Overpool & Grange ward, but also points out that the name of the ward does not reflect the area it covers, especially as it includes a large portion of the Ellesmere Port Town Centre. The name Central & Grange would have a greater resonance with local communities.

3.9. Whilst the Ledsham & Manor ward covers a large narrow area the Labour Group understands the Commissions reasons for this ward.

3.10. The Labour Group supports the unchanged Westminster boundary and the draft proposal for Netherpool which encompasses part of the current St Paul’s ward. 4. 4.1. The Labour Group fundamentally disagrees with the draft proposal for a single Neston & Parkgate ward having already expressed preference for smaller, single member wards to encourage greater local accountability and make governance clearer for local communities.

4.2. Having had a closer look at the Neston Town Council proposals for 3 single member wards within the boundary of the Neston Town Council, the Labour Group are minded to support their submission as this provides much clearer ward boundaries showing distinct identities for each. The Labour Group do not consider that this proposal splits communities unnecessarily, bearing in mind that there has been separate wards here, at least since the formation of the Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council in 1974 and there are distinct local communities.

4.3. The Labour Group therefore agrees with the Neston Town Council proposals for the following 3 wards:

4.3.1. Parkgate & Riverside: River Dee, borough boundary with Wirral Borough to a point 200 metres north of Backwood Farm, a line south eastwards to the centre of Leighton Road just north of its junction with Turners View, southwards down the centre of Leighton Road and Park Street, southwards down Mill Lane to follow the boundary of the present Parkgate Ward to its junction with the present Riverside Town Ward, and continuing southwards along the boundary of Riverside Town Ward (railway line) as far as, but not including, Marshlands Road and extending to the end of Riverside Walk and the rear of Sandon Crescent to the River Dee. Electorate 2016 4117 with a variance of 7.27% from the average of 3838 2023 4183 with a variance of 2.40% from the average of 4085

4.3.2. Little Neston: River Dee, southern boundary of new Neston West Ward, railway line northwards to southern corner of Cottage Close, eastwards between Cottage Close and Windermere Close, south of Page 4 of 5 Morland Avenue to the centre of Mellock Lane, northwards to Wirral Way, Wirral Way to A540, centre of A540 to existing Town Council boundary, existing Town Council boundary to River Dee. Electorate 2016 4117 with a variance of 8.49% from the average of 3838 2023 4156 with a variance of 1.74% from the average of 4085

4.3.3. Neston: To the north and north‐west the boundary with Wirral Borough southwards to the junction of Bluebell Lane and Quarry Road, eastwards to the rear of properties on the southern side of Quarry Road, southwards on the east side of A540 to the boundary with Neston South Ward, westwards to the boundary with Neston West Ward, northwards to the borough boundary. 2016 4216 with a variance of 9.85% from the average of 3838 2023 4210 with a variance of 3.06% from the average of 4085.

4.4. The proposed Town Council new boundaries are well within the acceptable range of number of electors 4.5. Willaston & Thornton: Remainder Chester High Road CH64 8TD, Hanns Hall Road have a greater affinity with Willaston village and should sit more easily in the current Willaston & Thornton Ward. This would give Willaston & Thornton ward more electors and a lesser variance to the Commissions acceptable range. 5. and Surrounding Villages 5.1. In general, the Labour Group is happy with the proposals for the Northwich area. The proposed single member wards of Northwich Witton, Northwich Leftwich, and Rudheath will provide better accountability with a single point of contact.

5.2. In particular, under the current electoral arrangements, deprivation in Leftwich has been “hidden” with the neighbourhood part of the same ward as the much more affluent parishes of Kingsmead and Davenham, as many statistics are only reported at ward‐level.

5.3. Parts of Leftwich are in the 20% most deprived areas of the country, whilst Kingsmead and Davenham are amongst the 10% least deprived (Davenham is in fact in the top 2%).

5.4. A separate ward for Leftwich makes sense from a community point of view, and will help the Council carry out its responsibility to residents more effectively.

5.5. Whilst we would have preferred single member wards for the neighbourhoods of Winnington and Castle, we accept the Commission’s decision to retain a two member ward in this area. We would suggest that the name should be changed to Northwich Winnington and Castle to better reflect the two community identities in the area

5.6. For the revised Northwich Town Council boundaries, the Commission has proposed an 8‐member ward encompassing the area covered by the CW&C Northwich Winnington ward.

5.7. Northwich Town Council elections are nearly always contested, and an 8‐member ward is impractical administratively, not to mention cumbersome for residents at the ballot box.

5.8. We suggest that this could usefully be split into three, with a 4‐member ward for the Castle area, and two 2‐ member wards for Victoria Infirmary end of Winnington (“Winnington Victoria”) and the Winnington Urban Village end respectively.

5.9. We are disappointed that the Commission has chosen to retain 3‐member wards for Marbury and for Weaver and Cuddington, albeit with some adjustments to the existing boundaries.

5.10. There are a huge range of demographic differences in these wards with areas of high deprivation in parts of Weaverham and Barnton, masked by areas of affluence elsewhere in these wards.

5.11. The northern end of Barnton in particular is amongst the 40% most deprived areas in the country, whilst the immediate surrounding rural area is amongst the 20% least deprived. These area have very different needs and require their own focus.

5.12. We suggest that this could be resolved as follows:

5.12.1. Create a single member ward for Barnton, covering polling districts NA1, NA2 and NA3. This would have an electorate of 4,321, with a 7.3% variance.

5.12.2. Create a two member ward for the remainder of Marbury, including Acton Bridge (polling district MG1). This would have an electorate of 7,174, a variance of ‐10.9%.

5.12.3. Create a three member ward for the remainder of Weaver and Cuddington. This would have an electorate of 11,343, with a variance of ‐6.1%.

5.13. Acton Bridge is close to the settlements of Bartington and Little Leigh, and shares similar issues to do with the A49, so we feel this would be a good fit. 6. Manley, Helsby and Elton & Mickle Trafford 6.1. Labour support the Commission’s proposals to retain the current Helsby ward and to create a single member Manley ward. We believe this will serve local residents well for the reasons outlined in the Commission’s own report.

6.2. It is with regret that the same cannot be said for Elton, an area which previously enjoyed a single point of elected representation, to now be joined with other areas that have no collective sense of community identity or use or transport links or local services.

6.3. Two single member wards of similar electoral equality could be created by keeping the southern villages of Mickle Trafford, Guilden Sutton and Great Barrow together, and then retaining an Elton ward made up of the polling districts to the north of these villages.

6.4. The variance for the proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward is already low at ‐8% so considerations for the warding arrangements in this area should focus more on community identity and access to clearly defined and accountable elected representation for the residents who live in these villages.