New electoral arrangements for Oldham Council Draft Recommendations June 2021 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Oldham Council

Electoral review

June 2021

Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2021

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Oldham? 2 Our proposals for Oldham 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 7 Draft recommendations 8 Failsworth 9 Saddleworth 11 Royton and Shaw & Crompton 14 Chadderton 18 Alexandra, Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth 22 Coldhurst, St James’, St Mary’s and Waterhead 26 Conclusions 29 Summary of electoral arrangements 29 Parish electoral arrangements 29 Have your say 31 Equalities 35 Appendices 37 Appendix A 37 Draft recommendations for Oldham Council 37 Appendix B 39 Outline map 39 Appendix C 40 Submissions received 40 Appendix D 41 Glossary and abbreviations 41

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Oldham?

7 We are conducting a review of Oldham Council (‘the Council’) as its last review was carried out in 2003 and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council in England ‘from time to time’.2 In addition, the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Oldham. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Oldham are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Oldham

9 Oldham should be represented by 60 councillors, the same number as there are now.

10 Oldham should have 20 wards, the same number as there are now.

11 The boundaries of 17 wards should change; three will stay the same.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 1 June 2021 to 9 August 2021. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 9 August 2021 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 31 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Oldham. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

14 December 2020 Number of councillors decided 6 January 2021 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 29 March 2021 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 1 June 2021 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 9 August 2021 forming final recommendations 2 November 2021 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation3 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors4 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2020 2026 Electorate of Oldham 165,109 170,975 Number of councillors 60 60 Average number of electors per 2,752 2,850 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Oldham will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2026, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2021. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 4% by 2026.

25 In response to the warding patterns consultation we received a number of comments about future developments, but no strong further evidence. We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the

3 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 4 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

26 Oldham Council currently has 60 councillors. The Council proposed the retention of a council size of 60, while the Liberal Democrat Group on the Council (‘Liberal Democrats’) proposed a reduction of 18, to 42 councillors, requesting a change to the electoral cycle to achieve a pattern of two-councillor wards.

27 We looked at evidence provided by the Council and the Liberal Democrats. We noted the Liberal Democrats’ request to change the electoral cycle to achieve a pattern of two-councillor wards. However, changing the electoral cycle is not within the Commission’s powers and the Council had not recommended a change to the electoral cycle. Therefore, as a Council that elects by thirds, we have a presumption of a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards, unless there is strong evidence in specific places to persuade us to move away from that pattern.

28 Notwithstanding the issue regarding two-councillor wards, we noted that the Liberal Democrats made reasoned arguments for a reduction in the number of councillors. However, they provided limited supporting evidence and the arguments were directly refuted by much of the evidence included in the Council’s submission. The Council argued that a reduction in councillors would significantly impact its ability to deliver services and local leadership, while technology has increased expectations among residents, creating a 24/7 demand that was challenging for councillors. Having considered the evidence, we concluded that retaining a council size of 60 would ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

29 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 60 councillors.

30 As Oldham Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation5 that the Council have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

31 We received a number of general objections to council size in response to our consultation on warding patterns. Some respondents argued for a reduction in council size. However, these were general comments with limited evidence.

5 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 2(3)(d) and paragraph 2(5)(c).

6

Therefore, we have not been persuaded to move away from a council size of 60 and our draft recommendations are based on a 60-councillor council.

Ward boundaries consultation

32 We received 84 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included borough-wide proposals from the Council and Oldham & Saddleworth Conservatives (‘the Conservatives’). The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

33 The two borough-wide schemes provided a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards for Oldham. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

34 A number of respondents proposed transferring areas of Oldham Council to neighbouring districts. However, we are unable to alter the external boundaries of the borough as part of this review.

35 In a number of areas, we have received proposals that seek to address issues with parish boundaries. These include areas where the parish boundaries cut through housing or separate addresses from their neighbours. We have looked at each case on its merit as it relates to our statutory criteria, but in some instances we consider that rather than drawing ward boundaries to address issues with the parish boundaries, these may be better addressed by a Community Governance Review.

36 The proposals from the Conservatives contained a number of more localised ward names, moving away from the geographic (e.g. north, south, east and west) references applied to many of the existing wards. While they provided some evidence to support these suggestions, we were concerned that in some areas we were using wards that retained geographic references. In addition, there was no other evidence of support for these names. We have therefore decided to retain the use of geographic references throughout the borough, but would welcome further local evidence about moving away from this convention to more specific local names.

37 Our draft recommendations also take into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

7

38 As a result of the unprecedented circumstances related to the outbreak of Covid-19, we were unable to conduct a visit to the area to look at the various different proposals on the ground. However, we were able to conduct a detailed, virtual tour of Oldham. This helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

Draft recommendations 39 Our draft recommendations are for 20 three-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

40 The tables and maps on pages 9–28 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Oldham. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory6 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

41 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 37 and on the large map accompanying this report.

42 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

6 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

Failsworth

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Failsworth East 3 -4% Failsworth West 3 -4%

Failsworth East and Failsworth West 43 The Council put forward minor modifications to the existing Failsworth wards, transferring a small area from Failsworth West ward to Failsworth East ward. It proposed this amendment to provide a small improvement in electoral equality and to reflect the access of the Ben Brierley Wharf development. Councillors Fielding, Briggs, Davis, , Garry and Jacques put forward an identical amendment, providing some supporting evidence of community links within the wards, arguing that the M60 is a clear boundary to the east.

9

44 The Conservatives proposed a north-south split of the Failsworth area. They also proposed transferring an area of the existing Hollinwood ward – to the east of the M60 – to their Failsworth North & Hollinwood ward. They argued that this area has good links across the M60 via Roman Road and Oldham Road, pointing out that Hollinwood Academy lies on the Failsworth side of the M60. The Conservatives also argued that transferring this area would help improve electoral equality, while facilitating a ward in the north that was focused around Oldham Road. They argued that their Failsworth South & Woodhouses ward would be semi-rural/rural in nature, when compared with their Failsworth North & Hollinwood ward.

45 A local resident argued for no change to the existing wards.

46 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the evidence from the Council and councillors for retaining the existing wards, subject to a minor modification. We have also examined the proposal from the Conservatives for transferring an area of Hollinwood ward to their Failsworth North & Hollinwood ward. However, while there are road links across the M60, these run up and over the motorway through areas with no residents, which we consider disrupts the community links. In addition, we are of the view that this proposal separates the area transferred from Hollinwood from its neighbours, including the facilities on Hollins Road. As discussed in the Alexandra, Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth section (below), we consider that this proposed arrangement breaks up one of the focal areas of the Hollinwood area, along Hollins Road. Although this proposal provides a small improvement in electoral equality, we note that the Council’s proposals also secure good levels of electoral equality. On balance, we are not persuaded to transfer this area of Hollinwood to a Failsworth ward.

47 While the Conservatives provided some evidence for a north-south split, it was no more persuasive than the evidence from the Council. In addition, given our decision not to transfer the area of Hollinwood to Failsworth, a north-south split would require us to redraw the boundary between the Conservatives’ Failsworth North & Hollinwood and Failsworth South & Woodhouses wards. We have no evidence for where such a redrawn boundary should run. On balance, we consider that the Council’s proposal for a minor amendment to the existing wards secures good electoral equality while using sensible boundaries. We are therefore adopting its proposals for three-councillor Failsworth East and Failsworth West wards. These wards would both have 4% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

10

Saddleworth

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Saddleworth North 3 -4% Saddleworth South 3 2% Saddleworth West & Lees 3 2%

Saddleworth North, Saddleworth South and Saddleworth West & Lees 48 The Council and the Conservatives put forward similar proposals for these wards, only suggesting small amendments to the existing wards to improve electoral equality or strengthen boundaries. The Council argued that the existing wards

11

function well, but proposed an amendment between Saddleworth North and Saddleworth West & Lees wards to transfer the Birks area to Saddleworth North. It argued that the current boundary divides a number of houses on the same street from their neighbours, which creates confusion locally. The Council argued that placing this whole area in Saddleworth North would address this confusion. Councillor Leach expressed support for the Council’s proposals.

49 The Conservatives proposed retaining the existing Saddleworth wards subject to a few small amendments and ward name changes. They proposed transferring a small area of Uppermill from their Saddleworth Moor ward (currently Saddleworth South) to their Saddleworth Rural ward (currently Saddleworth North), arguing this would improve electoral equality. They also proposed reverting to the parish boundary between their Saddleworth Rural and Saddleworth & Lees (currently Saddleworth West & Lees) around the Crossbank Avenue area.

50 Saddleworth White Rose Society and a local resident argued for no change to the existing wards. Another local resident stated that Ferndale Close should be moved from Alexandra ward to Saddleworth West & Lees ward. Another local resident argued that the Holts and Abbey Hills Road area should be transferred to Saddleworth West & Lees ward, while the north area of the ward should be transferred to Waterhead ward. A number of other residents put forward general comments about changes to the number of councillors or boundaries, but with no specific evidence.

51 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note that there appears to be broad agreement for minimal change to the existing wards. We are of the view that the Conservatives’ proposal to transfer an area of Uppermill to improve electoral equality would not reflect community links, dividing a small area of Uppermill from the remainder of the village. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. We also note the Conservative proposal to use the parish boundary around Crossbank Avenue. However, in this area the parish boundary cuts directly through a number of properties and splits houses on the same road from each other. Using the parish boundary would create confusion, compared with the existing ward boundary which reflects addresses and access. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

52 We also note the Council’s proposal in the Birks area. While this would use a clearer boundary and address the properties that are split, we consider this area appears more urban and looks toward the Saddleworth West & Lees area than Saddleworth North. As with the proposal from the Conservatives around Crossbank Avenue, we consider this would be better addressed by a Community Governance Review (discussed in paragraph 35) than by creating a district ward boundary that does not reflect community links. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

12

53 We have considered the argument that Ferndale Avenue should be in Saddleworth West & Lees, but only very limited evidence was provided and we have consequently not adopted this proposal. We have also considered the argument for transferring the Holts and Abbey Hills Road area to Saddleworth West & Lees, while removing the north area to Waterhead ward. Again, only limited evidence was provided. There is no other evidence of support for this and it would require us to move significantly away from the borough-wide proposals made by the Council and Conservatives. We have therefore not adopted this proposal.

54 Finally, we note that the Conservatives put forward alternative ward names. As discussed in paragraph 36, the majority of the ward names in Oldham use a geographical reference (e.g. north, south, east or west) and we do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to persuade us to move away from the existing names. However, we would welcome further local views during this consultation period.

55 Having carefully considered the evidence and assessed the options in the Saddleworth area, we are retaining the existing wards without amendment. The three-councillor Saddleworth North, Saddleworth South and Saddleworth West & Lees wards would have 4% fewer, 2% more and 2% more electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

13

Royton and Shaw & Crompton

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Crompton 3 -5% Royton North 3 3% Royton South 3 -5% Shaw 3 -8%

Crompton and Shaw 56 The Council proposed a number of modifications to the existing Crompton and Shaw wards. Shaw & Crompton Parish Council and the Liberal Democrats put forward identical proposals for these wards. They proposed two amendments to the existing wards, transferring an area to the west of Church Road and Chamber Road from Crompton to Shaw ward, primarily to improve electoral equality in Shaw ward. They argued that this arrangement would unite Church Road and Chamber Road, and that the area looks towards Shaw. They also proposed transferring the Alston

14

Avenue area from Shaw ward to Crompton ward, arguing that it has better links to the neighbouring properties in Crompton and is separated from Shaw by a small area of green space.

57 These respondents also proposed transferring parts of the existing Royton South ward to Crompton ward. They proposed transferring the Linkside Avenue area, arguing that Fir Lane is currently divided between three wards and this proposal would unite it with other housing along Fir Lane (around Windermere Road) that is in Crompton ward. The respondents also highlighted direct road links via Low Crompton Road. They proposed transferring Crompton & Royton golf course into Crompton ward, along with an area near Cowlishaw that will be subject to new housing. They argued that this area would access Cowlishaw, so would be better placed there than Royton South.

58 The Conservatives proposed no changes to the existing wards, arguing that any poor levels of electoral equality would be improved by developments that are occurring in both wards.

59 A local resident argued that the Windermere estate area should be in a Royton ward, not with Crompton. They argued that the existing boundary was an unnatural boundary, as this area is contiguous with Royton and not Crompton. Another resident argued that Crompton and Shaw should be a single ward, while another stated that the southern part of the Shaw Road area should be in a Royton ward.

60 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We note the comments from the Conservatives, and while development is forecast for Crompton, the development forecast in Shaw only has limited impact on electoral equality. While it might be the case that these areas will be further developed beyond 2026, thereby improving electoral equality, we can only have regard for developments occurring within the five-year period following the end of the review.

61 We also note the proposal to improve electoral equality in Shaw ward by transferring the Chamber Road and Church Road area into the ward from Crompton ward. However, while there may be links to Shaw, we note that this proposal disrupts the internal links within Crompton ward: Chamber Road and Church Road provide a north-south link, and transferring the area out of Crompton ward leaves the ward with no direct link by road. Although retaining the area in Crompton ward will leave Shaw ward with 8% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026, we consider this can be justified given its position at the edge of the borough and the settlement pattern in this area. In our view, there are no other areas that could be transferred into Shaw that would reflect local communities. However, we do support the proposal to transfer the Alston Avenue area to Crompton as this reflects its access and community links. Subject to this amendment, we are therefore not altering the boundary of the existing Shaw ward as part of our draft recommendations.

15

62 We agree with the Council (and other respondents) that the Cowlishaw development should be placed in Crompton ward. However, we have concerns about proposals from the Council and others to transfer the golf course and Linkside Avenue areas to Crompton. We are not persuaded by the argument for moving the Linkside Avenue area to Crompton ward. We note that while it has road access to Crompton, the area is in much closer proximity to the areas to the south in Royton ward. In addition, we are not persuaded by the argument to transfer the Linkside Avenue area so it is linked with the area around Windermere Road. We consider that the Windermere Road area appears detached from Crompton. Indeed, we agree with the resident that the Windermere Road area would be better served in a Royton ward. We note that doing so would require the creation of a parish ward in Shaw & Crompton parish, but we consider this acceptable if it permits the creation of a stronger ward boundary. Therefore, we propose to transfer the Windermere estate area to Royton North ward and retaining the Linkside Avenue area in Royton South ward (these wards are discussed in more detail below, paragraphs 66–71).

63 As a result of these changes, our Crompton ward would have 5% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026. While this is a lower level of electoral equality than the proposals, we consider this acceptable given the reflection of communities and clear boundaries.

64 Finally, in this area, we note that the proposal from the Council and others separates Crompton & Royton golf course from the clubhouse. While this does not affect any electors, we are of the view that they should be retained in a single ward. It is not possible to transfer the clubhouse without separating it from its access on High Barn Street and so we therefore recommend that the course and clubhouse are retained in Royton South ward.

65 Our three-councillor Crompton and Shaw wards would have 5% fewer and 8% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

Royton North and Royton South 66 The Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed modifications to the existing Royton North and Royton South wards. They proposed transferring the Holden Fold area to Royton North ward, arguing that it has links into Haggate and Royley and would facilitate the use of a strong boundary to the south. They stated that the area to the east is not residential, but should be included. To secure good electoral equality they proposed transferring the Higginshaw village area to Royton South ward, stating that while it is close to Oldham town centre it is somewhat separated.

67 The Conservatives also proposed transferring the Holden Fold area to their proposed Royton Tandle Hill ward (currently Royton North), but not the non- residential area to the east. The Conservatives instead proposed to retain this area in a Royton Heyside ward (currently Royton South ward). They proposed no

16

changes to the south of their proposed Royton Heyside ward. They provided good evidence of local community facilities that reflected their proposed ward names.

68 A resident requested no change to the existing wards, while another requested no changes to the ward names.

69 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. As noted in the Crompton and Shaw section above, we have proposed a number of modifications to the boundary with Compton ward. We note that there was agreement for transferring the Holden Fold area to Royton North, but that the Conservatives would keep the non-residential eastern area within their Royton Heyside ward (currently Royton South). While the Conservatives’ proposal would provide better electoral equality, particularly following our proposal to transfer the Windermere estate here from Crompton (paragraph 62), we consider that the boundary proposed by the Council and the Liberal Democrats is much clearer and more identifiable, and so we have therefore adopted it as part of the draft recommendations. Royton North ward in Royton would have 3% more electors than the borough average by 2026.

70 To the south, we note the proposal from the Council and the Liberal Democrats to transfer the Higginshaw village area into a South Royton ward to help improve electoral equality. However, while they argue that Higginshaw is somewhat separate from Oldham town centre, we note that it is separated from the rest of Royton by industrial areas. We consider that it would be better served if it was retained in a ward nearer the town centre. We are therefore not adopting the proposal from the Council and the Liberal Democrats, but are transferring the area into our St Mary’s ward as part of our draft recommendations (discussed below, paragraph 99). Following our decision to retain the Linkside Avenue area in a Royton South ward (paragraph 62), it is possible to transfer the Higginshaw area out of Royton South while securing good electoral equality. Our proposed ward for the south of Royton would have 5% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026.

71 As discussed above, the Conservatives provided good evidence for their revised ward names. While we are not adopting their ward boundaries, we did give consideration to their proposed names. As discussed in paragraph 36, the majority of the ward names in Oldham use a geographical reference (e.g. north, south, east or west) and we do not consider there to be sufficient evidence to persuade us to move away from the existing names. However, we would welcome further local views on our proposed ward names in this area during this consultation period.

17

Chadderton

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Chadderton Central 3 -1% Chadderton North 3 1% Chadderton South 3 4%

18

Chadderton Central, Chadderton North and Chadderton South 72 The Council proposed minor changes to the existing Chadderton Central, Chadderton North and Chadderton South wards. It argued that Chadderton North is defined as the area north of Middleton Road but proposed transferring the area around Bentley Street into the ward, arguing that it feels ‘linked’ to the rest of Chadderton North. The Council also proposed redrawing the boundary between Chadderton Central and Chadderton South, transferring the industrial area to the west of the A663 Broadway to Chadderton South, arguing that it also contains a police station and retail outlets that residents in Chadderton South would use. It proposed placing the Foxdenton development in Chadderton Central ward, arguing it would have no ‘commonality’ with Chadderton South. It also proposed transferring a small area around Raven Mill to Chadderton South. Finally, the Council proposed a small amendment to the south of its Chadderton South ward, tying the ward boundary to the A62, arguing this does not affect electors but provides a clearer boundary.

73 The Conservatives proposed moving away from the current warding pattern. They proposed a Chadderton Park ward, covering the northern area to the west of the A663 Broadway, arguing that this is Oldham’s busiest road and at this point has a crash barrier making it ‘uncrossable’. They argued that their proposal would create a mainly suburban ward, including the large Firwood Park estate. To the east of the Broadway, the Conservatives proposed a Chadderton North ward that included many of the town centre facilities either side of Middleton Road. Their proposal for this ward does, however, cross the Broadway near Lydia Becker Way to take in a small area of development, primarily to ensure electoral equality. Their proposed Chadderton North ward would also include the Busk area, with the Conservatives arguing that this is part of Chadderton and forms a natural boundary with Oldham town centre. Finally, the Conservatives proposed a Chadderton South ward, which would include the Foxdenton development to help secure electoral equality. They also proposed to transfer a small area around Old Lane out of Chadderton South to a proposed Werneth Park ward, again to ensure electoral equality. The Conservatives argued that their Chadderton South ward was a mixture of residential areas, as well as including significant areas of industry.

74 Chadderton Historical Society requested no change to the external area covered by the three existing Chadderton wards. However, it did argue that parts of the existing Coldhurst ward are considered part of Chadderton and should be reunited in Chadderton North ward. A local resident also argued that this area should be transferred to Chadderton. Another resident argued that the boundaries for the area should reflect the ‘Chadderton Township’, arguing that the Busk area should be in a Chadderton North ward. They also argued that the Elk Mill Shopping Park area should be returned to Chadderton and Middleton Road should be retained as the boundary between Chadderton Central and Chadderton North. Finally, they

19

proposed transferring an area around Block Lane to a Chadderton ward. Another local resident requested no change to the existing wards.

75 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting the different proposals for the area from the Council and Conservatives. While we do not concur that in the north area the A663 Broadway is uncrossable, noting a number or roads across, we agree that it is a significant barrier. We note that the Conservatives’ proposed Chadderton Park ward is well defined, centred around the western part of Middleton Road with Broadway as a boundary to the east. We can see logic in their proposal to place the Chadderton town centre in a single ward. In addition, their proposal also includes the whole Busk area within a Chadderton ward, as a number of residents and Chadderton Historical Society suggested. The Council only transfer the southern area of Busk, around the Town Hall. We note that transferring the whole Busk area would worsen electoral equality in the Council’s proposed Chadderton North ward to 12% more electors than the borough average by 2026.

76 We note that the Conservatives’ Chadderton North ward does cross Broadway near Lydia Becker Way. However, transferring this area to their proposed Chadderton South ward would worsen electoral equality there from 3% more electors than the borough average by 2026 to 8% more, while it would also worsen the Conservatives’ proposed Chadderton North ward from 1% fewer to 5% fewer. In addition, we note that their proposals include the Foxdenton development in a Chadderton South ward, contradicting the Council’s argument that it would not have ‘commonality’ with this area. However, we note that there are road links via Foxdenton Lane between the development and Chadderton South.

77 We note the comments from a resident about the Elk Mill area, but this is divided from Chadderton by the A627 and so we are not persuaded to transfer this area to a Chadderton ward. We also note the suggestion that the Block Lane area should be transferred to a Chadderton ward. However, only limited evidence was supplied to support this proposal and this area contains around 1,500 electors, significantly worsening electoral equality in Werneth and Chadderton to more than 10% from the average. In addition, the Metrolink line forms a clear boundary in this area. We are not adopting this amendment as part of our draft recommendations.

78 On balance, we consider that the Conservative proposals provide a good set of ward boundaries for this area, while also securing electoral equality and reflecting the concerns about the Busk area. We are therefore adopting them as part of our draft recommendations. We do, however, propose a small amendment to the Conservatives’ proposed Chadderton South ward, to retain the Old Lane area in Chadderton South. We consider the existing boundary here is clear and its use only marginally worsens electoral equality in Chadderton South from 0% to 4% more electors than the borough average by 2026.

20

79 Finally, in line with the concerns outlined in paragraph 36, we are amending the names put forward by the Conservatives to retain the geographic references, rather than specific local names. We welcome local views about the proposed names during this period of consultation.

80 Our three-councillor Chadderton Central, Chadderton North and Chadderton South wards would have 1% fewer, 1% more and 4% more electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

21

Alexandra, Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Alexandra 3 -4% Hollinwood 3 3% Medlock Vale 3 4% Werneth 3 5%

Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth 81 The Council’s proposals for these wards were based on the existing wards, subject to modifications to improve electoral equality and strengthen boundaries. It stated that its proposed Hollinwood ward was focused around Hollins Road, which includes key transport links and shops. The Council proposed a number of

22

amendments to improve electoral equality, transferring properties from the Howgill Crescent area from Medlock Vale ward to Hollinwood ward. It also proposed transferring part of the area of Coal Pit Lane, which will be subject to development, from Medlock Vale ward to Hollinwood ward. Additionally, it proposed a small amendment between its proposed Hollinwood and Werneth wards to strengthen the boundary.

82 The Council acknowledged that its proposed Medlock Vale ward combined a number of communities, but argued that they are well linked along Ashton Road. As discussed above, it proposed a number of amendments with Hollinwood ward, primarily to improve electoral equality. The Council also proposed uniting the whole of the Primrose Bank estate in its proposed Werneth ward, transferring the area from Medlock Vale ward. It argued that its proposed Werneth ward was well defined, being separated from Chadderton by the Metrolink line.

83 The Conservatives proposed three-councillor Coppice, Limeside & Bardsley and Werneth Park wards. It should be noted, however, that our decision to use the M60 as a boundary between the Failsworth and Hollinwood areas (discussed in paragraphs 43–47) has a knock-on effect to the Conservatives’ proposals, as the area they proposed transferring to Failsworth would have to be accommodated in their proposals for this area. This would require a significant redrawing of their Coppice, Limeside & Bardsley and/or Werneth Park wards without supporting evidence.

84 Two residents proposed retaining Medlock Drive in Medlock Vale ward. A number of other residents argued for no changes to Bardsley.

85 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. Notwithstanding the fact that the Conservative proposals would need to be significantly redrawn to accommodate the area of Hollinwood they proposed including in Failsworth, we had a number of other concerns regarding their proposals. In using Hollins Road as a boundary to divide the Hollinwood area, we are of the view that they divide an area of amenities and shops. In addition, we consider that the Conservatives’ proposed Limeside & Bardsley ward combines two areas with weaker links than those combined in the Council’s Medlock Vale ward.

86 In addition, while the Conservatives’ proposal included a compact Coppice ward, it would include an area to the west of Ashton Road currently in the existing Alexandra ward. We consider that this proposal appears to divide the area to the west of Ashton Road from its neighbours. Moreover, their proposal also transfers part of the Primrose Bank area to their Town ward. We note that this would divide Primrose Bank and that it would be cut off from the other residential areas in their Town ward by the A627. We note that the Council’s proposals seek to reunite Primrose Bank in its Werneth ward.

23

87 On balance, we consider that the Council has provided a stronger warding pattern for this area. We have some concerns about the inclusion of Howgill Crescent in its proposed Hollinwood ward and are of the view it would be better placed in its Medlock Vale ward. However, we note that doing so would worsen electoral equality there to 9% more electors than the borough average by 2026. We cannot identify any other area that could logically be included. Elsewhere, the Council’s minor amendments to the existing ward appear to strengthen boundaries. We are therefore adopting its proposals for these wards without modifications.

88 Our three-councillor Hollinwood, Medlock Vale and Werneth wards would have 3% more, 4% more and 5% more electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

Alexandra 89 The Council proposed modifications to the existing Alexandra ward. It proposed transferring the properties on Queens Road out of the Alexandra ward and into its proposed St Mary’s ward. The Council argued that while this area is different in nature to the Glodwick area it abuts in the St Mary’s ward, it is isolated from the rest of Alexandra ward. However, the Council acknowledged that transferring this area out of Alexandra ward would worsen electoral equality in the ward, and it therefore proposed to offset this by including the Lowside Drive area in Alexandra ward. While this arrangement would improve electoral equality, the Council acknowledged that the Lowside Drive area would be better served remaining in Glodwick ward.

90 The Conservative proposal for Alexandra included a part of the Glodwick area to the south of Waterloo Street, to help secure electoral equality. In our view, this appears to divide a compact residential neighbourhood. In addition, as discussed in paragraph 86, they proposed to transfer an area to the west of Ashton Road out of Alexandra ward. We were not persuaded to adopt this proposal.

91 A resident argued that the existing Alexandra ward is made up of a number of unconnected communities. They argued that the Holts and Abbey Hills Road area should be transferred to the Saddleworth & Lees ward. Another resident argued for no change to the existing ward.

92 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We have considered the argument for transferring the Holts and Abbey Hills Road area to Saddleworth West & Lees, while removing the northern area to Waterhead. However, only limited evidence was provided and we have not adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

93 While the Council’s proposed ward generally provides for a good balance in the statutory criteria, we are concerned about the logic of uniting the Queens Road area

24

of Glodwick in its St Mary’s ward while removing the Lowside Drive area. Indeed, the area of Lowside Drive has no direct connection into Alexandra ward. We note that it would be possible to retain both areas in a St Mary’s ward, leaving Alexandra ward with 7% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026. This level of electoral equality would be acceptable, but on balance, although the Queens Road area is somewhat separate from the parts of Alexandra, it is linked south via Abbey Hills Road and faces directly on to Alexandra Park, rather than into Glodwick. We consider it better to leave this area in Alexandra ward, while leaving the Lowside Drive area in St Mary’s ward. This would leave Alexandra ward with 4% fewer electors than the borough average.

25

Coldhurst, St James’, St Mary’s and Waterhead

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Coldhurst 3 4% St James’ 3 0% St Mary’s 3 6% Waterhead 3 2%

Coldhurst and St Mary’s 94 The Council proposed a minor modification to the existing Coldhurst ward, transferring a small area around the town hall to its proposed Chadderton North ward. As discussed in paragraphs 70 and 89–93, the Council also proposed a number of changes to St Mary’s ward.

26

95 The Conservatives proposed a Town ward, covering much of the area of the existing Coldhurst ward. However, they proposed transferring the Busk area to their Chadderton Park ward, while transferring part of the Primrose Bank area to their Town ward. They also proposed a Glodwick ward covering part of the existing St Mary’s ward, including the southern area of the existing Waterhead ward. The Conservatives argued that this avoids the current division of the community on Lees Road, which contains many shops and businesses. As discussed in paragraph 89– 93, to improve electoral equality they also proposed transferring part of the Glodwick area to the south of Waterloo Street to their Alexandra ward. As noted above, we were not persuaded to adopt this proposal.

96 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. As discussed in paragraphs 72–80, we support the Conservative proposal to include the Busk area in a Chadderton ward. However, as discussed in paragraphs 81–88, we had concerns about the Conservatives’ proposals for other areas of its Town ward. We do not consider that the proposal to transfer part of the Primrose Bank area to Town ward reflects communities, dividing an area that the Council’s proposals sought to unite.

97 Finally, we note the Conservatives’ argument that their proposed Glodwick ward creates a ward with the Lees Road as a focus. However, we consider that the proposal transfers the main commercial area of Lees Road into its St James’ ward, separating it from its neighbouring residential areas. Given the concerns outlined, we have not been persuaded to adopt the Conservative proposals for these wards.

98 As discussed in paragraph 93, we propose a modification to the boundary between the Council’s St Mary’s and Alexandra wards, keeping the whole of Lowside Drive in St Mary’s ward, while Queens Road remains in Alexandra ward. As discussed in paragraphs 75–78, we also propose transferring the whole of the Busk area to a Chadderton ward. This would worsen electoral equality in the Council’s proposed Coldhurst ward to 6% fewer electors than the borough average by 2026. While we consider this to be an acceptable level of electoral equality, we note that this creates an opportunity to remove the Higginshaw village area from Coldhurst ward and retain it in a ward nearer Oldham town centre.

99 As discussed in the Royton North and Royton South section, we are therefore retaining the Higginshaw village area in St Mary’s ward. However, doing this alone, given the amendments we propose for Alexandra ward, would leave St Mary’s ward with 15% more electors than the borough average by 2026. To address this, our draft recommendations include the area around Horsedge Street in Coldhurst ward, rather than in St Mary’s ward. As result, both of these three-councillor wards would have 4% more and 6% more electors than the borough average by 2026, respectively.

27

St James’ and Waterhead 100 The Council proposed a minor change to the boundary between the existing St James’ and Waterhead wards to reflect the correct access of Lea Green Close. It argued that the existing wards function well, being linked by Ripponden Road.

101 The Conservatives proposed St Thomas and St James’ wards. Their St Thomas ward would comprise the Sholver, Moorside and Watersheddings areas, being linked by Ripponden Road. Their St James’ ward would comprise the southern part of the existing St James’ ward and the central area of Waterhead ward, as well as parts of the existing St Mary’s and Coldhurst wards. This ward would be focused around the town centre and also incorporate areas of heavy industry.

102 A resident requested no change to the existing wards. Another resident asked that the gardens on Alexandra Terrace are included with the properties. Another resident argued that Walden Avenue should be in a Saddleworth ward or St James’ ward.

103 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received. We can see some logic for the Conservatives’ proposed St Thomas ward, noting it creates a single ward focused on areas from around Oldham Town Centre. However, to adopt this would require the creation of a ward to the south comprising the remainder of St James’ and Waterhead wards, which was not proposed by any local interest. On balance, we are not persuaded to adopt this proposal. We are therefore basing the draft recommendations in this area on the Council’s proposals, subject to the minor amendment around the gardens on Alexandra Terrace. We note the comment from a resident about Walden Avenue, but this would require the transfer of a relatively large area and reconfiguration of neighbouring wards. In our view there was not sufficient evidence to support this.

104 We propose three-councillor St James’ and Waterhead wards, which would have 0% and 2% more electors than the borough average by 2026.

28

Conclusions

105 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Oldham, referencing the 2020 and 2026 electorate figures against the proposed number of councillors and wards. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2020 2026 Number of councillors 60 60 Number of electoral wards 20 20 Average number of electors per councillor 2,752 2,850 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 1 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Oldham Council should be made up of 60 councillors serving 20 wards representing 20 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Oldham. You can also view our draft recommendations for Oldham on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

106 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

29

107 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Oldham Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

108 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Shaw & Crompton parish.

109 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Shaw & Crompton parish.

Draft recommendations Shaw & Crompton Parish Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East 3 North 4 South 3 South West 1 West 3

30

Have your say

110 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

111 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Oldham, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

112 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

113 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Oldham) LGBCE PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE

114 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Oldham which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

115 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

31

116 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Oldham?

117 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

118 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

119 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

120 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

121 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

122 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft

32

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Oldham Council in 2023.

33

34

Equalities 123 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

35

36

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Oldham Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Alexandra 3 7,343 2,448 -11% 8,232 2,744 -4%

Chadderton 2 3 8,359 2,786 1% 8,504 2,835 -1% Central

3 Chadderton North 3 8,637 2,889 5% 8,674 2,981 1%

4 Chadderton South 3 8,798 2,933 7% 8,886 2,962 4%

5 Coldhurst 3 8,618 2,873 4% 8,923 2,974 4%

6 Crompton 3 7,982 2,661 -3% 8,081 2,694 -5%

7 Failsworth East 3 7,925 2,642 -4% 8,229 2,743 -4%

8 Failsworth West 3 7,790 2,597 -6% 8,174 2,725 -4%

9 Hollinwood 3 8,335 2,778 1% 8,800 2,933 3%

10 Medlock Vale 3 8,438 2,813 2% 8,856 2,952 4%

11 Royton North 3 8,706 2,902 5% 8,822 2,941 3%

12 Royton South 3 7,554 2,518 -8% 8,110 2,703 -5%

37

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 13 Saddleworth 3 7,866 2,622 -5% 8,176 2,725 -4% North Saddleworth 14 3 8,355 2,785 1% 8,686 2,895 2% South Saddleworth West 15 3 8,476 2,825 3% 8,700 2,900 2% & Lees 16 Shaw 3 7,511 2,504 -9% 7,842 2,614 -8%

17 St James’ 3 8,128 2,709 -2% 8,569 2,856 0%

18 St Mary’s 3 8,703 2,901 5% 9,021 3,007 6%

19 Waterhead 3 8,670 2,890 5% 8,757 2,919 2%

20 Werneth 3 8,915 2,972 8% 8,934 2,978 5%

Totals 60 165,109 – – 170,975 – –

Averages – – 2,752 – – 2,850 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Oldham Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

38

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater- manchester/oldham

39

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/north-west/greater-manchester/oldham

Local Authority

• Oldham Council

Political Groups

• Oldham & Saddleworth Conservatives • Oldham Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor S. Fielding et al (Oldham Council) • Councillor V. Leach (Oldham Council)

Local Organisations

• Chadderton Historical Society • Saddleworth White Rose Society

Parish and Town Councils

• Shaw & Crompton Parish Council

Local Residents

• 76 local residents

40

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

41

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

42 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE