Public Document Pack

Simon W. Baker B.Ed MBA MISPAL Chief Executive

28 November 2017

Dear Councillor,

The next Meeting of the Council will be held on Wednesday, 6 December 2017 in The Council Chamber, Moorlands House, Leek at 6.30 pm.

The Agenda for the Meeting is attached at Appendix ‘A’.

Tea and Coffee will be served in the Churnet Room between 6:00pm and 6:25pm.

Yours faithfully,

S. W. BAKER Chief Executive

NOTE

Councillors using the Car Park at the rear of the Council Offices are requested to indicate on their car that it is being used by a Councillor whenever they use the Car Park, otherwise they may be challenged by the Council’s Car Park Attendant.

www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek, Staffordshire Moorlands, ST13 6HQ. Tel: 0345 605 3010

APPENDIX A

Prayers will be offered prior to the commencement of the meeting. 1. Apologies for absence, if any.

2. Minutes of the previous meeting (Pages 5 - 10)

3. Urgent items of business, if any (24 hours notice to be provided to the Chairman).

4. Declarations of interest 1. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests 2. Other Interests 5. Chairman's or Leader's announcements and correspondence, if any.

6. Receipt of petitions, if any.

7. To consider and debate any recommendations from the Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Panels and Committees, if any.

7 .1 Standards Committee - 10 November 2017 - Annual Report 2016/17 (Pages 11 - 20) Recommendation – That the report be noted. 7 .2 Cabinet - 5 December 2017 - Updated Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22 (Pages 21 - 64) Recommendation - That Council approves the updated Medium-Term Financial Plan 8. Recommendations from meetings in the interim period prior to the Council Meeting, if any.

8 .1 Constitution Review Working Party - 4 December 2017 - Review of the Composition of the Audit and Accounts and Standards Committees (Pages 65 - 68) Recommendation – That the revised composition of the Audit and Accounts Committee and Standards Committee as proposed in paragraph 3.3 of this report be approved. 9. Parliamentary Boundary Review (Pages 69 - 126) Recommendation - To authorise officers to submit a response to the consultation exercise on behalf of the Council in support of the revised proposals. 10. Review of Dispensation To review, in accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, the approval of a dispensation to Councillor D. Trigger from attending meetings of the Council and its constituent bodies due to his ongoing treatment for a medical condition until the next meeting of the Council when the situation will be reviewed. 11. Notices of Motion in accordance with Procedure Rule No. 8, if any.

11 .1 Councillor K. Jackson - Post-Brexit Regional Policy (motion enclosed) (Pages 127 - 128)

12. To answer questions asked under Procedure Rule No. 10, if any. (At least two clear days notice required, in writing, to the Proper Officer in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.3.) 13. To consider any political group appointments or changes to membership, if any.

14. Exclusion of the Press and Public: The Chairman to move:-

“That, pursuant to Section 100A(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings whereby it is likely that confidential information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act would be disclosed to the public in breach of the obligation of confidence or exempt information as defined in Section 100 I (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act would be disclosed to the public by virtue of the Paragraphs indicated.” 15. To consider and debate any recommendations from the Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Panels and Committees, if any.

16. To answer questions asked under Procedure Rule No. 10, if any. At least two clear days notice required, in writing, to the Proper Officer in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.3.)

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2.

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL MEETING

Minutes

WEDNESDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT: Councillor B Emery (Chairman)

Councillors R Alcock, C J S Atkins, J Davies, S Ellis, E Fallows, K Flunder, A Forrester, D Grocott, T Hall, K Harrison, A Hart, N Hawkins, G Heath, I Herdman, B A Hughes, K J Jackson, P Jackson, C R Jebb, B Johnson, J T Jones, I Lawson, L D Lea, G Lockett, M A Lovatt, M M Lovatt, I J Lucas, L A Malyon, T McNicol, D Ogden, C Pearce, N Podmore, Price, S E Ralphs MBE, T Riley, P Roberts, S Scalise, D Shaw, H Sheldon MBE, J Walley, R Ward, P Wilkinson, C Wood, P Wood and M Worthington

APOLOGIES: Councillors A Banks, G Bond, M Bowen, J Bull, M A Deaville, M Gledhill, R Plant, J Redfern, D Trigger, E Wain and A Wilkinson

Prayers were offered by the Reverend Prebendary Lawrence Price.

15 MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING 10 MAY 2017, COUNCIL ASSEMBLY 19 JULY 2017 AND EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 6 SEPTEMBER 2017

RESOLVED - That the Minutes of the Annual Council Meeting 10 May 2017, Council Assembly 19 July 2017 and the Extraordinary Council Meeting 6 September 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

16 URGENT ITEMS OF BUSINESS, IF ANY (24 HOURS NOTICE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN).

Councillor Wood requested that, following the response received from the Department of Health with regards to the Council’s motion of no confidence in North Staffordshire CCG agreed on 6 September 2017, the Council forwards this motion to NHS England. The Leader of the Council confirmed that she would be meeting the Secretary of State for Health shortly to discuss this matter.

RESOLVED - That the Council’s motion of no confidence in North Staffordshire CCG be forwarded to NHS England.

Page 5

17 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following declarations were made:-

Members Declaring Agenda Item Nature of Interest Interest

Any site specific matters Disclosable Pecuniary arising relating to the Local Cllrs. Hart and Johnson Plan. Interest

18 CHAIRMAN'S OR LEADER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE, IF ANY.

The Chairman thanked members for attending his Civic Service on 30 July 2017 and reminded members that his Charity Ball would take place on 28 April 2018.

19 CABINET - 1 AUGUST 2017 - PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2017/18 (INCORPORATING THE ANNUAL REPORT 2016/17 AND REVISED CORPORATE PLAN 2017-2019)

It was requested by Councillor K. Jackson that officers be instructed to consider the implications for the introduction of a 1 hour parking charge at Wharf Road, Biddulph. The Leader of the Council requested that the suggestion be put in writing for further consideration to be given.

RESOLVED - That the revised Corporate Plan 2017-2019 be approved.

20 AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE - 28 JULY 2017 - ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT

RESOLVED - That the Annual Treasury Management Report 2016/17 be approved.

21 AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE - 28 JULY 2017 - TREASURY MANAGEMENT UPDATE REPORT

RESOLVED - That the Treasury Management position as at 30 June 2017 be noted.

22 AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE - 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 - TREASURY MANAGEMENT - UPDATE REPORT

RESOLVED - That the Treasury Management position as at 31 August 2017 be noted.

23 CONSTITUTION REVIEW WORKING PARTY - 10 OCTOBER 2017 - DRAFT UPDATED PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE RULES

RESOLVED – That the revised Procurement Procedure Rules be approved.

Page 6 2

24 CONSTITUTION REVIEW WORKING PARTY - 10 OCTOBER 2017 - AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL'S CONSTITUTION, PART 3, TABLE 7 - DELEGATION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (TRANSFORMATION) (CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER)

RESOLVED - That the additional delegation relating to cheque signing rules as detailed in the report be approved.

25 APPROVAL OF DISPENSATION

RESOLVED - That, in accordance with Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, Councillor D. Trigger be granted a dispensation from attending meetings of the Council and its constituent bodies due to his ongoing treatment for a medical condition until the next meeting of the Council when the situation would be reviewed.

26 TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ASKED UNDER PROCEDURE RULE NO. 10, IF ANY.

1. Question to the Leader of the Council received from Councillor Chris Wood:

“Following the decision by Leek Post and Times to terminate their lease of the building in Market Place, can the Leader of the Council inform the Council the costs which the Council will now incur in terms of rent and ongoing costs.”

Response:

“The Council has not received formal legal notification or intention to vacate the premises by the Post & Times. The occupier cannot surrender the lease without the Council agreement.”

In response to supplementary questions the Leader of the Council stated that the tenant was aware of their obligations and that it would not be appropriate to discuss terms of the lease in open session.

2. Question to the Portfolio Holder for Environment received from Councillor Charlotte Atkins:

“What is the maintenance schedule for the footpath from The Walks to John Street?”

Response:

“We believe the footpath is an adopted public right of way and therefore its maintenance is a matter for our County Council colleagues not SMDC. As an adopted public right of way this Council does periodically clear the footpath of litter, which is scheduled on a 4 weekly basis”

In response to supplementary questions the Portfolio Holder issued the following written statement to councillors to confirm the liabilities of the Council:

“As mentioned on the night in my reply this Council only has responsibility to clear litter and fly-tipping from the adopted highway. Highways, including footpaths, are adopted by the County Council who have responsibility for highway safety which would include dealing with obstructions such as overhanging vegetation, potholes, surface maintenance, signage and the like. Adopted highways are known as maintainable at the public expense. Page 7 3

The County Council has a helpful map on their website which allows anyone to look up whether or not a road or footpath is maintainable at the public expense. The link is:- https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/Highway-Record- Enquiries/Road-status/Search.aspx

I should add not everything is that simple where a road is not adopted. An example covered in the local media recently was Fowlchurch Road in Leek. Here the road is adopted up to our Fowlchurch depot. Beyond the depot the road is maintainable under a separate sale agreement between this Council and the County Council whereby we have shared maintaining liability proportionate to the usage, this mostly being to SCC’s Waste Transfer Station and Household Waste Recycling Centre.

3. Question to the Leader of the Council received from Councillor Charlotte Atkins:

“What progress has been made on hearing loops for the Dove Room, the Churnet Room and the Council Chamber?”

Response:

“The hearing loops are currently going through the design phase as solutions and options are being drawn up to create specifications which will be put out to tender. Once the tender is issued there will be an advertisement period of 4 weeks and on receipt of those tenders and award made an update can follow on timescales for implementation.”

In response to supplementary questions the Leader of the Council confirmed that the requirements for induction loops would be looked into and that they would then be installed.

4. Question for the Leader of the Council received from Councillor Charlotte Atkins:

“What talks has the leader had on creating a dementia centre for Leek?”

Response:

The Leader stated that she wanted to help to keep the hospital open and that the Clinical Commissioning Group would be holding a pre-consultation meeting on 16 October 2017 to capture the views of the public of services that should be provided. The hospital should remain open with additional services including the minor injuries unit and a percentage of community beds. It was an ideal opportunity to introduce specialised dementia care and help to alleviate pressure on the Royal Stoke Hospital. The Leader had held one or two meetings per week with various elements of the NHS. The Leader also confirmed that she would be meeting with the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, to seek his support to retain the hospital.

In response to supplementary questions the Leader of the Council confirmed that she had spoken to many stakeholders and would provide a list.

Page 8 4

5. Question to the Portfolio Holder for the Environment received from Councillor Darren Price:

“Can the relevant portfolio holder please update the Council on the progress of the proposed formation of the new joint venture company set up with High Peak Borough Council and the Cheshire East Council owned ANSA?”

Response:

“Alliance Environmental Services Limited (AES) was established in August 2017. The Company has been established to deliver waste collection, street cleansing, grounds maintenance and fleet management services to this Council and its strategic alliance partner High Peak Borough Council. The services provided by the company will be managed by ANSA who are a wholly owned subsidiary of Cheshire East Borough Council. It is expected that the new company will deliver in excess of £1.2 million of annual savings once it has been fully established.

AES was established following a series of reports which were considered by Cabinet and the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panels. Cabinet approved the Council’s shareholding in the company on 6th June after consideration of the proposed governance arrangements by a scrutiny working group made up of members of both SMDC and HPBC.

At this stage the principal focus of the new company has been the delivery of the waste collection service in High Peak which was previously provided a private sector provider. This service has been successfully transferred to the new company and is now fully operational.

The next consideration for the two Councils is the transfer of the additional services to the new company. The plan is to complete this exercise by August 2018. The process and phasing of the service transfers has yet to be agreed and will be considered over the coming months. The development of the approach will involve the relevant scrutiny panels and the joint working group before the final decision is made by Cabinet.”

In response to supplementary questions the Portfolio Holder stated that the Council was happy to work with Cheshire East Council and that subsequent stages of the agreement would be considered further by Cabinet.

27 TO CONSIDER ANY POLITICAL GROUP APPOINTMENTS OR CHANGES TO MEMBERSHIP, IF ANY.

RESOLVED - That the following amendments to committee membership be noted subsequent to changes to political group membership:-

Appeals Board: Delete: Councillor M. Bowen Add: Councillor C. Wood

Service Delivery Overview and Scrutiny Panel: Delete: Councillor D. Ogden Add: Councillor D. Price

Page 9 5

Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel: Delete: Councillor D. Ogden Add: Councillor D. Price

The meeting closed at 7.17 pm

______Chairman ______Date Page 10 6

Agenda Item 7.1

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Standards Committee

10 November 2017

TITLE: Standards Committee - Annual Report 2016/17

PORTFOLIO HOLDER: Councillor Sybil Ralphs - Leader

CONTACT OFFICER: Linden Vernon – Senior Officer (Governance & Member Support)

WARDS INVOLVED: Non-Specific

Appendix A – Role and Function of the Committee

1. Reason for the Report

1.1 To review the work of the Standards Committee during 2016/2017.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the report be noted.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 This report provides an overview of the issues considered by the Standards Committee during 2016/17. These included the following matters:

. Monitoring complaints received regarding alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct . The Annual Letter received from the Local Government Ombudsman . An annual review of Councillor development . Local Public Services Senior Managers’ Code of Ethics . Code of Conduct - Dispensations . Review of the Council’s Local Ethical Framework

Page 11

4. Options and Analysis

4.1 There are no options to consider.

5. Implications

5.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) Not Applicable.

5.2 Workforce Not Applicable.

5.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's Diversity and Equality Policies.

5.4 Financial Considerations An annual budget is available for Councillor Training and Development.

5.5 Legal The Localism Act 2011 introduced the current Standards framework.

5.6 Sustainability Not applicable.

5.7 Internal and External Consultation Not applicable.

5.8 Risk Assessment Not applicable.

Mark Trillo Executive Director (People) and Monitoring Officer

Web Links and Contact details Background Papers Previous Committee Reports Linden Vernon – Senior Officer https://democracy.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/ieListM (Governance & Member Support) eetings.aspx?CommitteeId=191 Tel: 01538 395613 Email: [email protected]

Page 12 6. Background and Detail

6.1 Article 9 of the Council’s Constitution defines the role and function of the Standards Committee and is shown in full in Appendix A to this report. In summary this includes:

. To promote high standards of conduct by elected and co-opted members and staff; . To advise the Council, monitor the operation and provide training/notes on local codes of conduct, protocols or other ethical guidance for Members and staff; . Granting dispensations to District Councillors; . To consider and where necessary take action regarding complaints for breaches of the Code of Conduct; . To promote Member development and training on ethics and standards generally within the District Council; . To monitor the Council's corporate complaints procedure including any references to the Local Government or Housing Ombudsman and to consider any implications for the Council’s codes, protocols or ethical guidance; . To advise the Council on the adoption or revision of the Constitution.

6.2 The current membership of the committee is provided below. The Council’s Independent Persons continue to be invited to attend and participate at Committee meetings.

District Councillors Cllr. Elsie Fallows (Chair) Cllr. Tony Hall (Vice-Chair) Cllr. Geoff Bond Cllr. Kevin Jackson Cllr. Ian Lawson Cllr. Peter Wilkinson Co-opted Town/Parish Cllr. David Fowler representatives (non-voting) Cllr. Christine Meyrick Independent Persons Mr. Harry Mawdsley Mr. Philip Brough (substitute) Mr. Barry Steans (substitute)

Complaints Monitoring

6.3 The Committee continued to receive regular complaint monitoring reports regarding alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. These reports updated members on the number and nature of complaints dealt with by the Monitoring Officer and explained:

. If these related to District, Town or Parish councillors; . If any further action should be taken; . If further investigations were considered to be appropriate.

Page 13 6.4 This information is then used to identify trends and consider themes for which training seminars may be planned. The table below summarises the complaints received for previous years and compares these with the Authority’s Strategic Alliance partner, High Peak Borough District Council.

Year No. of Complaints Staffordshire Staffordshire Staffordshire High Moorlands Moorlands Moorlands Peak Parish Cllr District Cllr Total Total 2013/14 3 1 4 11 2014/15 5 1 6 3 2015/16 3 12 15 4 2016/17 9 16 25 6

6.5 The Annual Letter of the Local Government Ombudsman was considered by the Committee at its meeting in November 2016. The table below provides a summary of the number of complaints dealt with by the Ombudsman set against the total number of complaints received by the Authority. For comparison purposes figures for previous years are also provided together with details for High Peak Borough Council (HPBC).

Year No. of Ombudsman Complaints SMDC HPBC No. of Total No. of Total Enquiries Number of Enquiries Number of or Complaints or Complaints Complaints Complaints 2012/13 14 439 10 404 2013/14 12 280 20* 372 2014/15 10 284 12 413 2015/16 13 258 11 368

* This includes one complaint from the Housing Ombudsman Service.

6.6 The relatively small number of complaints that reach the Ombudsman compared to the total number of complaints received by the Authority illustrates the strength of the Council in ensuring complaints are dealt with promptly and appropriately.

Annual Review of Councillor Development

6.7 A report was presented to the Committee in March 2017 which provided a review of councillor development for the previous 12 months.

6.8 The Member Development Working Group had developed a programme of learning and development opportunities for all councillors that was updated on a rolling basis with activities identified through a variety of channels, for example, following the evaluation of events,

Page 14 from emerging priorities and changes to legislation etc. (e.g. the Housing and Planning Act 2016). Learning and development opportunities should benefit councillors as individuals in their various roles and ultimately have a positive effect for the Council and the community.

6.9 Members are requested to complete evaluation forms after each session. Scores and comments are compiled and circulated to the course providers and are used to inform the structure and content of future courses.

6.10 The majority of seminars had been undertaken in-house, with two exceptions these being a session provided by the Planning Advisory Service and a safeguarding seminar which was provided by a specialist external trainer. The delivery of seminars by officers had been shown to be a very cost effective method and the feedback from councillors supported the use of in-house expertise which allowed for sessions to take into account the Council’s specific policies and procedures.

6.11 The Development Programme during the previous 12 months had included the following seminars:

. Workshop Raising Awareness of Prevent . General Planning Applications Training . The Housing & Planning Act 2016 . Overview & Scrutiny Seminar . Safeguarding Training . Planning Applications Committee Training . Licensing Training

6.12 Course materials, including presentations, were automatically published on the Councillors’ Portal area of the Authority’s Intranet which could be accessed by all members.

6.13 In addition to the main training programme, support was on-going around the Members’ IT project. This had recently included the roll-out of the Modern.Gov app onto tablet computers to provide improved access to committee meeting reports. This included group training sessions, drop in sessions and 1:1s as required.

Local Public Services Senior Managers’ Code of Ethics

6.14 The Committee supported the adoption of the Local Public Services Senior Managers’ Code of Ethics for inclusion in the Council’s Ethical Framework. A range of professional bodies representing senior managers across local public services, including Solace (Society of Local Government Chief Executives) and CIPFA (Charted Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) had come together to develop a code of ethics for their members.

Page 15 6.15 The code was an overarching statement of ethics, based upon behaviours and therefore focused on the individual, as opposed to group or organisational culture. It was intended to be applicable to all those who hold senior management roles in local public services led by locally elected politicians.

6.16 The code was consistent with the ‘Principles of Public Life’ published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and it was proposed that the Code be incorporated into officers’ terms and conditions.

Code of Conduct – Dispensations

6.17 Section 33 of the Localism Act made provision for circumstances where dispensations may be granted. The power to grant dispensations had been delegated by Council to the Standards Committee, in consultation with the Independent Person.

6.18 Previously, under the old Code of Conduct, general exemptions were provided to all councillors with regard to prejudicial interests in any business of the authority where that business related to certain functions of the authority.

6.19 The arrangements introduced by the Localism Act 2011 did not reproduce these exemptions and as a result councillors could effectively breach the Code of Conduct should they take part in a meeting where any of these matters were being discussed and they have a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter. In October 2012 the Standards Committee therefore granted dispensations for a period of four years relating to issues such as setting of the council tax. As this period was due to expire the Committee approved the extension of these dispensations for a further four years.

Review of Local Ethical Framework

6.20 In March 2017 the Committee approved a revised Local Ethical Framework for the Authority which draws together various Council policies to ensure high standards of ethical behaviour and good governance throughout the Council. The Framework was last reviewed during 2013.

6.21 The Framework included a commitment to review the document to ensure that it is entirely “fit for purpose” and reflects all relevant best practice guidance. A revised Framework was therefore proposed for the consideration of the Committee. This took into account the adoption of the Local Public Services Senior Managers’ Code of Ethics, revised core principles for good governance held within the Council’s Code of Corporate Governance and a revised “Code Of Practice For Members - Gifts and Hospitality” which had also been updated in to take account of consequential changes following the introduction of the latest Code of

Page 16 Conduct for members and changes to the Council’s organisational structure.

Page 17 APPENDIX A

Article 9 - The Standards Committee

9.1 Standards Committee The Council has established a Standards Committee.

9.2 Composition

(a) Membership. The Standards Committee will comprise:  seven elected members of the Council, appointed proportionally;  up to two Town or Parish Council members may be co-opted on to the Committee as non-voting members.

(b) Independent Person. The Council’s Independent Person and their substitutes will be invited to attend and participate at committee meetings but will not be entitled to vote at meetings.

9.3 Role and Function The Standards Committee will have the following roles and functions:

(a) To promote high standards of conduct by elected and co-opted members and staff of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

(b) To advise the District Council on the adoption or revision of local codes of conduct, protocols or other ethical guidance for Members and staff.

(c) To monitor the operation of the Council's codes of conduct, protocols or other ethical guidance.

(d) To provide briefings, training or advisory notes to elected and co-opted Members and staff relating to the Council's codes of conduct, protocols or other ethical guidance.

(e) Where appropriate, granting dispensations to Councillors from requirements relating to interests set out in the Members Code of Conduct.

(f) To consider and where necessary take action regarding complaints for breaches of the Code of Conduct both by the Council’s members and by Town and Parish Council members.

(g) To exercise those functions referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) above for the Parish and Town Councils of Staffordshire Moorlands in respect of their codes of conduct.

(h) To promote Member development and training on ethics and standards generally within the District Council.

(i) To monitor the Council's corporate complaints procedure including any references to the Local Government or Housing Ombudsman and to

Page 18 consider any implications for the Council’s codes, protocols or ethical guidance.

(j) To advise the Council on the adoption or revision of the Constitution in accordance with Article 14.

9.4 Delegated Powers The Standards Committee has full delegated power to act within its defined role and function.

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7.2

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Cabinet

5th December 2017

TITLE: Updated Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22

PORTFOLIO HOLDER Cllr Sybil Ralphs – Leader

CONTACT OFFICERS: Claire Hazeldene – Finance & Procurement Manager

WARDS INVOLVED: Non-Specific

Appendix Attached  Appendix A (Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2021/22)

1. Reason for the Report

1.1 This report presents the Council’s updated Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The MTFP presents the Council’s priorities in the context of the likely resources available, providing a financial context to future decision making.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That Cabinet endorse the updated Medium-Term Financial Plan (Appendix A) with the recommendation that it should proceed to Council for approval.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The medium term financial planning process provides the Council with the opportunity to plan its delivery of public services in accordance with local priorities and against the backdrop of unprecedented public sector financial constraint.

3.2 The MTFP is updated in accordance with the budget cycle. This version of the MTFP presents the Council’s finances over a four-year period, namely 2018/19 to 2021/22. It sets the context for the preparation of the 2018/19 budget which will need to be approved by the Council in February 2018.

3.3 The Plan provides:

Page 21

 Details of local spending influences in the context of the Corporate Plan  A focus on the transformation programme and the consequential financial implications, including the capital programme and efficiency & rationalisation plan  Updated inflation and interest assumptions using the latest forecasts and the impact of any budgetary demand  An update on any national issues that will impact on the Council’s financial position

3.4 The previous version of the MTFP was agreed by the Council in February 2017 when setting the budget for the current financial year. At that point, the Plan identified a £3.1 million budget shortfall over the four-year period. This was primarily as a result of the reduction in Government funding including the phasing out of Revenue Support Grant by 2019/20 and changes to the New Homes Bonus funding system.

3.5 A new financial year (2021/22) has now been added to the plan, which forecasts a small deficit. However, the overall financial assumptions have been updated for the four years, and taking account of the projected 2017/18 surplus position as forecast in the Quarter Two report – this results in a reduction to the overall use of reserves by the end of 2021/22 of £336,470. However, this is subject to progression of the current efficiency programme and changes to financial assumptions going forward.

3.6 The plan has been updated to reflect reduced levels of business rates retention - most significant in year 1 (2018/19) of the plan. This is a result of reductions in net income from successful appeals and new reliefs awarded as a result of the Chancellor’s spring budget which were not known at the time of budget setting in February 2017. The reliefs are funded by S31 grants – this creates a surplus on business rates retention in the current year on the general fund (2017/18), but a collection fund deficit in year 1 (2018/19) of this plan. Therefore it is appropriate to ring fence the surpluses being forecast in 2017/18 (as per the Quarter 2 report) to fund the distribution of the deficit being created in year 1.

3.7 Achieving a balanced budget over the medium-term relies upon delivery of the Council's approved efficiency & rationalisation strategy. A new efficiency programme was presented and approved as part of the MTFP update in February 2017 which focused on both reducing expenditure and increasing income. The main areas of focus being:

 Major Procurements - There is the opportunity to focus attention on a number of large service functions which are currently provided by an external contractor / supplier. A number of significant contracts are coming to an end. This will also allow a fundamental review of these services with proper consideration of the current financial constraints. The contract commitments have sometimes restricted the opportunity to align services across the alliance with High Peak. The individual

Page 22 projects will focus on Waste Collection & Environment Services, Leisure Management and Facilities Management  Asset Management Plan – continuation of the existing priority of rationalising the Council’s asset base with a focus around priorities in order to allow for the necessary capital investment  Growth – development of a clear focus upon housing and economic growth based upon the established Local Plan.  Income Generation – focus on increasing the yield from existing sources of income and a drive towards identifying new sources of income  Rationalisation – a commitment to reducing expenditure on non-priority areas of spend e.g. management arrangements, channel shift, non- statutory services

3.8 Current progression against the efficiency programme is positive, with the 2017/18 target likely to be achieved. However, the ability to limit the impact of the reduction in central government support and achieve the overall 4 year efficiency programme target is underpinned by the following critical success factors:

 The realisation of savings from the implementation of an alternative delivery model for Waste, Streets and Parks via the transfer of services to trading company Alliance Environment Services  A review of current leisure centre provision in order to reduce the Council’s subsidy  The approval and delivery of the Local Plan in order to achieve income generation from sustained housing and economic growth  Reviewing fees and charges and identifying new sources of income generation  Retained business rates through economic growth and the saving of the levy payable to central government as a consequence of the Council's membership of the Staffordshire Business Rates Pool (as per the current business rates system) and potential benefits if selected as a pilot County for 100% business rates retention;

3.9 The MTFP also assumes an annual 1.9% increase in Council Tax over the life of the plan.

3.10 As previously stated, this version of the MTFP sets the context for the development of the 2018/19 Budget. Members will receive a further update of the MTFP when considering the final budget proposals in February 2018. The following actions will need to be completed to ensure that these proposals are robust:

 Complete review of the Council's transformation programme and revised forecasts as required  Development of detailed budget plans for 2018/19  Development of detailed proposals for fees and charges increases  Review progress of the efficiency programme

Page 23  Complete review of reserves and balances  Continue to monitor the ongoing issues arising from the Autumn budget, retention of business rates and the associated financial implications for the Council

4. How this Report Links to Corporate Priorities

4.1 The successful delivery of all corporate priorities is dependent upon the effective management of financial resources, which is the subject of this report.

5. Options and Analysis

5.1 The report is a statement of fact. As such there are no options to consider.

6. Implications

6.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) None.

6.2 Workforce None.

6.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council's Equality and Diversity policies.

An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken on the Corporate Plan, which feeds into budget plans.

6.4 Financial Considerations There are substantial financial considerations contained throughout the report.

6.5 Legal None.

16.6 Sustainability None.

6.7 External Consultation The Council’s budget plans are the subject of an annual public consultation exercise. Full details are contained within the plan

6Risk.8 A Risk Assessment A full risk analysis has been undertaken which is contained within the plan

Page 24

ANDREW P STOKES Executive Director (Transformation) & Chief Finance Officer

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers

Various background working papers Moorlands House Claire Hazeldene Finance & Procurement Manager 01538 395400 Ext. 4191

Keith Pointon Principal Finance Officer (Financial Planning) 01538 395400 Ext. 4193

Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2018/19 to 2021/22

November 2017

Page 27

INDEX

1 Introduction

2 Strategic Priorities

3 Current Spending Levels

4 Transformation Programme 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Capital Programme 4.3 Efficiency and Rationalisation Strategy 4.4 Member Priority Projects

5 Financial Forecasts 5.1 Interest Rates 5.2 Inflationary Projections 5.3 Budgetary Demand 5.4 Budget Growth 5.5 Pensions

6 Funding & Income Generation 6.1 Council Tax 6.2 Business Rates Retention 6.3 Collection Fund 6.4 Income from Government Grants 6.5 Fees & Charges

7 Risks, Contingencies & Use of Reserves

8 General Fund Revenue Financial Position

9 Consultation

Annex A Proposed Capital Programme Annex B Efficiency & Rationalisation Strategy Annex C MTFP Principal Risks Annex D Proposed Revenue Budget

Page 28 1. Introduction

1.1. The Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) is a key element of the Council’s budget and policy framework. It aims to ensure resources are directed effectively and efficiently towards delivery of the Corporate Plan. It describes the financial direction of the Council for planning purposes and outlines the financial pressures the Council is likely to experience over the next 4 years.

1.2. The budget and medium term financial planning process establishes how available resources will be allocated to services in line with Council priorities which have been determined following consultation with residents, councillors and other stakeholders. The process facilitates the Council in planning the prudent management of its finances, in building resilience and in providing for the needs of residents over the long term.

1.3. The MTFP is updated regularly to fit in with the budget cycle. This review of the MTFP builds on the existing strategy and updates assumptions to reflect known changes to income, costs and funding. The plan incorporates revenue and capital financial projections over the four years 2018/19 to 2021/22.

1.4. The Council will demonstrate economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the application of its resources. Value for Money (VFM) is maximised when there is an optimum balance between economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

 Economy: the price the Council pays for providing its services  Efficiency: how much the Council gets out of what’s put in (productivity)  Effectiveness: value of the impact achieved (quantitative or qualitative)

2. Strategic Priorities

2.1. The Budget and Medium Term Financial Plan is driven by local priorities. The Council’s spending strategy is set out in the Corporate Plan formally adopted by members of the Council.

2.2. Following the elections in May 2015, there was a fundamental review of the Corporate Plan focussing on the period 2015-2019 (up to the end of the current political administration).

2.3. The Council’s 4-year Corporate Plan (2015-2019) articulates the aims, objectives and priority actions, which the Council is working to achieve over this period. Its delivery is measured through the Performance Framework, which has at its centre the three pillars of value for money - efficiency, economy and effectiveness. It in effect determines the Council’s commitments in the delivery of services and community leadership to the citizens of Staffordshire Moorlands.

2.4. The Council’s Corporate Plan was developed after taking into account the views and aspirations of Staffordshire Moorlands citizens and having come to a clear understanding of empirical evidence. The plan has taken due recognition of the national and regional policy framework. It has taken on board learning from the progress made by the Council and has benefitted from input from Members at a priority setting event which was held in September 2015.

Page 29 2.5. The opportunity has now been taken, at the mid-point of the current administration, to reflect on the progress made during the first two years of the Plan and to reiterate the Council’s commitment to the remaining objectives as well as adding any new areas of priority that have emerged since the Plan was first developed.

2.6. The Council’s vision is expressed as:

“Achieving Excellence in the delivery of high quality services that meet the needs and aspirations of our communities”

This vision is articulated further by four aims:-:

 Help create a safer and healthier environment for our communiites to live and work  Meet our financial challenges and provide value for money  Help create a strong economy by supporting further regeneration of towns and villages  Protect and improve the environment

2.7. These aims are supported by a number of objectives which also provide the framework for the delivery of service plans. The Council’s objectives are summarised below: Aim Objectives

 Increased supply of good quality affordable homes 1 Help create a safer and  Develop a positive relationship with communities healthier environment for  Effective relationship with strategic partners our communities to live  Effective support of community safety arrangements and work including CCTV

 Provision of sports facilities and leisure opportunities focused upon improving health

 Effective use of financial and other resources to ensure 2 Meet our financial value for money challenges and provide  Ensure services are easily available to all our residents value for money in the appropriate channels and provided “right first time”  A high performing and well motivated workforce  More effective use of Council assets

 Encourage business start-ups and enterprises 3 Help create a strong economy by supporting  Flourishing town centres that support the local economy further regeneration of  Encourage and develop tourism towns and villages  High quality development and building control with an “open for business” approach

 Effective recycling and waste management 4 Protect and improve the  Promote environmentally sustainable policies and environment practices

 Provision of high quality public amenities, clean streets and environmental health  Provision of quality parks and open spaces  Car parking arrangements that meet the needs of residents, businesses and visitors

Page 30 2.8. The Council is committed to playing the lead role in championing the local area. In so doing the Council recognises its community leadership role. Fulfilling this role effectively means influencing partners in a number of key areas in order to ensure that services are shaped and delivered around the needs and aspirations of citizens.

2.9. The Council’s influencing role is focused in the following areas:

 Support the police and other partners to reduce crime, the fear of crime and anti social behaviour  Ensure there is effective health provision particularly for the elderly  Support the development of rail links to the city of Stoke-on-Trent  Ensure that the services provided by other public sector partners meet the needs of residents  Work with Staffordshire County Council and other partners to ensure an effective partnership with central government

2.10. The Plan identifies key priority outcomes, which will be the highest priority in the development of perfromance targets and key actions. A significant proportion of the Council’s resources will be directed towards achieving them:-

Aim Objectives

1 Help create a safer and  Increased supply of quality affordable homes healthier environment for  Improved health our communities to live  Improved community safety and work

2 Meet our financial  Balanced and sustainable medium term financial plan challenges and provide position value for money  Council services provide value for money  High level of resident and customer satisfaction

3 Help create a strong  Sustainable towns and rural communities economy by supporting  Increased economic growth further regeneration of towns and villages

4 Protect and improve the  High recycling rates environment  Quality parks and open spaces and clean streets

2.11. The Council maintains a Strategic Alliance with High Peak Borough Council, formed around the principle of shared services in the pursuit of efficiency and realisation of savings. The Strategic Alliance has enabled the implementation and transformation of a joint management structure and services, consequently realising significant efficiency savings.

2.12. The Council intends to continue to drive savings and service improvements through collaboration with its Alliance partner, High Peak Borough Council.

Page 31 3. Current Spending Levels

3.1. The starting point for the development of the MTFP is the current level of spending and the approved capital expenditure commitments.

3.2. The Council’s current year (2017/18) General Fund budget can be summarised as follows:

2017/18 Income and Expenditure Budget £ Employees 8,311,440 Premises 1,936,990 Transport 1,210,730 Supplies & Services 4,541,910 Benefits 5,010 Borrowing 255,400 Parish Grant 27,610 Financing Costs 555,000 Unachieved Efficiencies (2014/15 – 2016/17 plan) 443,600 Contribution to / (from) Reserves and Balances (528,390)

Total Expenditure 16,759,300 Fees and Charges / Other Income (5,733,990) Interest Receipts (39,000) Ascent LLP Income (574,270)

Net Expenditure 10,412,040

3.3. The net expenditure is financed as follows:

2017/18 Financing Budget £ Council Tax (5,027,910) Government Funding (744,760) New Homes Bonus (945,570) Business Rates Retention (3,095,190) Collection Fund Deficit 62,390 Efficiency Requirement (661,000) Total Financing (10,412,040)

Page 32 3.4. The medium-term projection for capital commitments approved by Members in February 2017 is detailed below: -

Service Area 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ Asset Management 105,270 1,452,270 1,126,240 390,320 365,150 3,439,250 Affordable Housing ------Growth Fund - 700,000 800,000 - - 1,500,000 Housing Grants 532,060 1,008,000 1,008,000 1,008,000 1,008,000 4,564,060 ICT Strategy 281,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 80,630 511,630 Other Schemes 350,500 66,500 164,000 50,000 50,000 681,000 Total Programme 1,268,830 3,276,770 3,148,240 1,498,320 1,503,780 10,695,940 Financed by:- External Contributions 685,950 1,085,810 1,008,000 1,008,000 1,008,000 4,795,760 Capital Receipts - - 18,000 150,000 190,000 358,000 Capital Reserve 482,880 417,120 - - - 900,000 S106 Planning 100,000 22,000 114,000 - - 236,000 Borrowing - 1,751,840 2,008,240 340,320 305,780 4,406,180 Total Financing 1,268,830 3,276,770 3,148,240 1,498,320 1,503,780 10,695,940

Page 33 4. Transformation Programme

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. The Council’s ‘transformation programme’ incorporates all major projects which meet the strategic priorities of the authority and have significant financial implications, including:-

 The capital programme  The efficiency and rationalisation strategy  Service reviews  Member priority projects  Other large scale projects

4.1.2. The delivery of transformation programme projects is monitored by the Transformation Board made up of Directors, Heads of Service along with key Corporate Service Managers and officers. A Director is allocated as ‘project executive’ and a full business case appraisal is completed for each project.

4.1.3. The progress and current financial projections of the transformation programme are explored below along with any potential revenue and capital consequences. Any further work required to identify the financial implications of the programme are discussed and will feed into the 2018/19 budget setting process.

4.2. The Capital Programme

4.2.1. The Capital Programme presented to Members in February 2017 has been reviewed, re-profiled and updated to reflect the latest position in terms of capital projections to 31st March 2022.

4.2.2. The latest capital projections, specifically identifying the major schemes, are summarised in the table below. Full detail is attached in Annex A.

Service Area 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total £ £ £ £ £ £ Asset Management Plan 917,660 1,441,140 673,400 393,470 2,640,970 6,066,640 Affordable Housing ------Growth Fund ------Housing Grants 531,630 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 5,375,630 ICT Strategy 104,310 19,390 19,390 19,390 19,390 181,870 Other Schemes* 141,760 664,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 1,155,760 1,695,360 3,335,530 2,153,790 1,673,860 3,921,360 12,779,900 Financed by: External Contributions 758,060 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 5,602,060 Capital Receipts - 21,000 150,000 190,000 - 361,000 Capital Reserve 420,000 - - - - 420,000 S106 Planning 22,000 114,000 - - - 136,000 Borrowing 495,300 1,989,530 792,790 272,860 2,710,360 6,260,840

Total Financing 1,695,360 3,335,530 2,153,790 1,673,860 3,921,360 12,779,900 *includes £700,000 provision for new schemes as detailed in 4.2.36

Page 34

4.2.3. The 2017/18 capital projections above include the carry forward of £93,380 capital budgets from 2016/17 as approved by Members in August 2017

Asset Management Plan

4.2.4. It is essential that the Council maintains an asset base, which delivers the ambitions of the Corporate Plan – however, this needs to be affordable. This is becoming increasingly difficult due to the age of a number of the Council’s key buildings and the shrinking amount of financial resources available to support service delivery.

4.2.5. A stock condition survey has been undertaken on the Council’s property assets. A report detailing the outcomes and actions emerging was presented to Cabinet on 20th September 2016. This included the potential capital and revenue financial implications of maintaining the Council’s current property assets over a 30 year period. This was reviewed and updated in February 2017 to take account of any changes and updates to stock information since September 2016, and has subsequently been reviewed again for the purposes of this report.

4.2.6. The surveys have confirmed that a number of the Council’s operational assets are dated in appearance, have structural issues or urgent health and safety work requirements or the electrical and mechanical infrastructure require updating. The investment required to ensure the assets remain fit for purpose is significant over the 30 year period and would consequently impact on future revenue budgets.

4.2.7. Therefore, the report discusses the options to either reduce the amount of capital expenditure or reduce the impact on revenue of the necessary capital spending:-  Asset rationalisation  Shared use of assets  Reduction in specification and functionality  Generate additional capital receipts  Identify grants to support investment  Generate additional revenue from asset holdings

4.2.8. Additionally, it also recommended the review of a number of areas as detailed below:  Public conveniences and car parks provision, with a view to disposal of assets that are surplus to requirements.  Leisure asset portfolio in the context of the expiry of the existing leisure management contract with a view to reducing the on-going assets and operating costs  Operational depot asset portfolio in the context of a potential new operating model with a view to reducing overall costs  Strategic land holdings with a view to developing options to either generate additional capital receipts or opportunities to generate ongoing financial returns

Page 35 4.2.9. The table below illustrates the capital investment requirements on the Council’s property portfolio and revenue consequences (cost of borrowing) over a 30 year period as reported in September 2016:

2020-21 – SMDC AMP Capital Investment & Revenue 2016-17 – 2045-46 TOTAL Consequence 2019-20 (26 years) £ £ £ Public Buildings 1,010,850 2,761,600 3,772,450 Car Parks 754,000 4,293,431 5,047,431 Public Conveniences 181,400 415,800 597,200 Waterways & Infrastructure Assets 479,361 448,761 928,122 Leisure Centres 310,000 10,005,995 10,315,995 Depots and Parks Buildings 97,070 2,355,714 2,452,784 Industrial Units 80,380 392,050 472,430 TOTAL 2,913,061 20,673,351 23,586,412

Revenue Consequences (cost of borrowing) 115,959 943,653 1,059,612

4.2.10. The AMP and consequent financial implications were then updated within the Budget & MTFP to take account of any more up-to-date asset data and the forecast outturn position in 2016/17.

4.2.11. The table below reflects the updated capital investment requirements which had increased by £192,000 over the 30 years which marginally increased the revenue consequences:-

2016-17 SMDC AMP Capital 2017-18 – 2021-22 – (current Investment & Revenue 2020-21 2045-46 TOTAL year Consequence (MTFP) (25 years) forecast) £ £ £ Public Buildings 100,000 1,315,540 2,439,600 3,855,140 Car Parks - 754,000 4293,431 5,047,431 Public Conveniences - 181,400 415,800 597,200 Waterways & Infrastructure 5,270 543,091 448,761 997,122 Assets Leisure Centres - 355,000 10,005,995 10,360,995 Depots and Parks Buildings - 104,570 2,343,464 2,448,034 Industrial Units - 80,380 392,050 472,430 TOTAL 105,270 3,333,981 20,339,101 23,778,352

4.2.12. This report provides an opportunity to update the capital investment requirements once again – taking into account the 2016/17 actual outturn position, further up-to-date asset data and any actions already taken as part of the asset review.

Page 36

SMDC AMP Capital MTFP* 2022-23– 2016-17 2017/18 Investment & Revenue 2018/19– 2045-46 TOTAL (actuals) (forecast) 2021/22 Consequence 2020/21 (24 years) £ £ £ £ £ £ Public Buildings 70,020 416,710 1,011,940 0 2,376,200 3,874,870 Car Parks 0 0 686,000 0 4,293,431 4,979,431 Public Conveniences 0 85,000 96,400 0 415,800 597,200 Waterways & Infrastructure 5,270 262,650 328,711 105,000 343,761 1,045,392 AssetsLeisure Centres 1,700 153,300 200,000 1,822,780 8,183,215 10,360,995 Depots and Parks Buildings 0 0 104,570 713,190 1,630,274 2,448,034 Industrial Units 0 0 80,380 0 392,050 472,430 TOTAL 76,990 917,660 2,508,001 2,640,970 17,634,731 23,778,352

Revenue Consequences - 10,650 112,710 36,450 719,280 879,090

*The current MTFP capital programme costs of the AMP include approved carry forwards from 2016/17, projected spend in 2017/18, revised estimates for 2018/19-2020/21 and the additional estimated costs of maintaining the asset portfolio in 2021/22.

4.2.13 The overall 30 year programme remains consistent with the programme reported when setting the Budget and MTFP in February 2017. However, there has been some re-profiling of expenditure between financial years.

4.2.14 Although the 30 year programme has increased by £191,940 from the September 2016 report, the revenue consequences have now reduced by £180,520 over the 30 years in line with the latest interest rate forecasts provided by the Council’s treasury management advisors – which are subject to change dependent on the economic climate. The consequential borrowing costs of capital investment up to 2020/21 have been incorporated into the MTFP.

4.2.15 However, the revenue consequences remain significant and are front loaded and therefore action is required in order to reduce the overall impact on the revenue budget. 4.2.16. Any positive revenue implications of the asset management plan, for example, reduced annual maintenance and utility costs due to fewer and/or more efficient buildings and income receipts from shared accommodation partners will be taken towards the efficiency programme.

Affordable Housing Project

4.2.17. The Council’s affordable housing project is being delivered via Ascent Housing – the joint venture established by the Council in partnership with Your Housing. Phase one is now complete with the majority of the 276 units now occupied.

4.2.18. The £5 million debenture facility was fully drawn in 2014/15, and is generating annual income of £100,000 for the remainder of the 25 year period (subject to early repayments by Ascent).

Page 37 4.2.19. £14 million of the £20 million loan facility has been drawn to date, it is assumed that the remaining £6million loan facility will not be drawn during the 4 year period of this plan. However, if further schemes are developed as part of the business plan, further drawdowns may be required.

4.2.20. The first tranche of the loan facility matured in October 2017, the £7m was refinanced by Ascent with the Council for a short-term period of 1 year until October 2018. This has had a slight negative impact on income levels as the 1 year interest rate applied was less than previously charged for 5 years.

4.2.21. The short-term refinancing has been completed pending a full review of the Ascent business plan and wider funding arrangements carried out by Your Housing and the Council to ensure the Ascent model remains financially sustainable.

4.2.22. It is assumed at this stage that Ascent will refinance with the Council on maturity the existing loans for a further period of 5 years. The Council will be meeting with Your Housing prior to the February MTFP to consider the result of the business plan review.

Growth Fund

4.2.23. Members approved the establishment of a growth capital fund. The growth fund was set up with the aim of supporting capital projects that have a positive impact upon the Council’s strategic objectives and generate revenue income streams.

4.2.24. Formal applications to the fund were invited, but after an appraisal of the business cases, no external applications have progressed to the next stage of assessment. Therefore, the current £1.5million provision included within the capital programme has been removed at this stage.

4.2.25. There are a number of internal schemes currently in development, which aim to accelerate business growth and employment - the business case for moving forward with these projects will be assessed by the Transformation Board.

4.2.26. Any capital provision required for these projects will be reported and approval requested on an individual basis.

4.2.27. Any growth related projects should aim to generate income receipts for the Council, for example via increased business rates, rental income or interest receipts in order to contribute to the efficiency and rationalisation programme (as detailed in section 4.3)

Housing Grants

4.2.28. The District Council is the duty holder under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 for the mandatory Disabled Facilities Grant (DFGs) and this status remains despite changes to funding arrangements. All eligible applicants are entitled to receive mandatory funding for certain major adaptations to their properties. The funding for these adaptations has

Page 38 previously been given directly to the council but from 2015/16, the funding has been incorporated into the Better Care Fund and paid to the County Council. In 2017-18 the County Council has paid over DFG funding of £1,211,533 which represents an increase of £557,000 from the previous funding mechanism.

4.2.29. The Better Care Fund is a single pooled fund for all health and social care provision and covers the whole range of services including public health, social care services and clinical commissioning groups

4.2.30. It is uncertain if the increased level of funding will be maintained for future years. The Staffordshire District Councils are in discussions with the County Council about funding options, criteria and performance measures from 2018/19 onwards, in the form of the joint procurement of a new service delivery model aimed at building some consistency and resilience into the DFG scheme.

4.2.31. In the meantime because of current demand and changes to the delivery of DFGs it is unlikely that the existing funds will be required to deliver the mandatory grants programme. If there is to be any significant spend against the new increased budget, there is a need to find new areas to invest. There is scope to do this as part of the funding agreement as long as any proactive scheme outside the mandatory DFG programme is agreed with the County Council and is restricted to capital expenditure. There are several possible options which for example include; investment in local schools catering for persons with disability needs; work with local social housing providers to look at dementia friendly adaptations or improvements to existing housing schemes with a significant number of elderly residents.

4.2.32. All proposals will require some significant set-up time and some changes to the Council’s current Private Sector Housing Policy in order to facilitate the change.

ICT Strategy

4.2.33. The framework for the existing 3 year ICT Strategy was established in 2014/15. The key drivers of which are to support delivery of the Efficiency and Rationalisation Plan, provide the infrastructure to support joint working, support new ways of working and improve access to services for our customers. The Strategy is currently being reviewed and refreshed to take account of work undertaken to date and priorities going forward.

4.2.34. The aim of the current Strategy is to reduce the number of applications and software and consequently pressure on server space. The capital provision for this project was been reprofiled to account for the acceleration of the infrastratucture and Microsoft compliancy phase of the project resulting in; higher than originally anticipated expenditure in 2016/17 and forecast spend in 2017/18

4.2.35. Capital investment is required to establish the infrastructure required to meet the key drivers. This in turn will identify the revenue consequences of capital purchases – increased costs including maintenance, updates and annual

Page 39 licence purchases, offset by savings resulting from better usage and consolidation of the Council's suite of systems.

New Capital Schemes

4.2.36. There are a number of new schemes which the Council is currently assessing the business case for to determine the cost of progressing each scheme. For this MTFP update, an additional provision of £700,000 has been included to account for the following schemes:-

- Brough Park Improvements

A report was presented to Cabinet in July 2016 seeking approval for up to £600,000 in capital funding to support enhancements to Brough Park in Leek. This represented the Council’s 20% (maximum) contribution to the overall project, with the remaining 80% funding to be applied for from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)

The funding bid was rejected by the HLF, therefore, the Council is in the process of submitting a second funding bid for a reduced scheme which would require £200,000 of matched funding from the Council. In addition, other improvements have been identified in respect of the skate park/pond area which are to be costed..

- Cheadle Recreational Ground improvements

Provision has been included for improvements to Cheadle recreational facilities – again these works are to be fully costed.

- Moorlands House asset management works and refurbishment

Capital provision has been included within the 30 year asset management plan (see 4.2.12) for capital works required at Moorlands House which include boiler and air conditioning unit replacement. There is also provision to carry out a partial refurbishment to further roll out open plan office accommodation, with a view to creating capacity for additional office space as part of the Council’s accommodation strategy, which aims to reduce overall costs of office accommodation. A further allocation of capital may be required to complete this project.

- Leek Buttermarket/Trestle Market enhancements

Capital provision has also been included within the 30-year asset management plan for essential works to the Leek Buttermarket and Trestle market to ensure the buildings are wind and water tight, focusing on replacing broken window panes. A further capital allocation is required to make enhancements to the buildings as part of the markets review, focusing on developing the markets and subsequently aiming to increase income from this facility.

Page 40

Financing the Capital Programme

4.2.37. The capital programme can be funded from a number of options which include external grants and contributions from third parties comprising of Government and lottery funding; capital receipts from asset sales as part of the asset management plan; earmarked revenue reserves and borrowing.

4.2.38. The main element of spending within the current programme which is expected to be funded from external resources is support towards Disabled Facilities Grants. Estimated capital receipts of £0.3m will be available over the next four years subject to a review of surplus assets. Revenue reserves of £0.4m are forecast to be applied 2017/18.

4.2.39. Borrowing is therefore the main funding option for the programme. The Treasury Management Strategy then considers whether this is funded externally or internally - both options have a consequence on revenue either through reduced investment income or increased external interest liability as highlighted in the table below.

4.2.40. There remains a balance of £100,000 within the earmarked reserve established specifically to fund capital projects. It is proposed to use this fund where an options appraisal on the acquisition of vehicles, plant and equipment has been carried out and suggests that the most financially viable option is to outright purchase.

Revenue Consequences of the Capital Programme

4.2.41. The capital investment proposals above will result in estimated revenue consequences as follows:

Revenue Consequence* 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 (changes year-on-year) (baseline)

£ £ £ £ £ Ascent Loan Income (474,270) 27,580 (23,270) 960 - Debenture Income (100,000) - - - - Growth Fund (recovery of Borrowing) (5,690) 5,690 - - - costs) Borrowing Costs 255,400 28,330 56,950 15,860 36,970

Total (324,560) 61,600 33,680 16,820 36,970

* Income generation from the growth projects, savings from asset rationalisation and implementation of the ICT Strategy are already assumed within the Efficiency & Rationalisation Plan (see 4.3)

Page 41 4.3. Efficiency & Rationalisation Strategy

4.3.1 The current Efficiency and Rationalisation Strategy was approved by Members in February 2017, which identified a programme of £3.1 million (including £443,600 in unachieved efficiencies from the previous efficiency programme) in savings to be made over the period 2017/18 – 2020/21.

4.3.2. The new Efficiency and Rationalisation Strategy has the effect of both reducing expenditure and increasing income. The need to grow income is now more of a priority as the Council moves more towards being self-financing i.e. not reliant on direct government funding such as revenue support grant.

4.3.3. The strategy has been developed with the underlying principles of protecting frontline service delivery. It is also intended that the strategy is a tool to enable the Council to ensure that its service spending is determined by the established priorities set out in the Corporate Plan.

4.3.4. It is intended that there will be five areas of focus:-

 Major Procurements - There is the opportunity to focus attention on a number of large service functions which are currently provided by an external contractor / supplier. A number of significant contracts are coming to an end. This will also allow a fundamental review of these services with proper consideration of the current financial constraints. The contract commitments have sometimes restricted the opportunity to align services across the alliance with High Peak. The individual projects will focus on Waste Collection & Environment Services, Leisure Management and Facilities Management  Asset Management Plan – continuation of the existing priority of rationalising the Council’s asset base with a focus around priorities in order to allow for the necessary capital investment  Growth – development of a clear focus upon housing and economic growth based upon the established Local Plan.  Income Generation – focus on increasing the yield from existing sources on income and a drive towards identifying new sources of income  Rationalisation – a commitment to reducing expenditure on non-priority areas of spend e.g. management arrangements, channel shift, non- statutory services

4.3.5. The below table summarises the finanical savings requirements and profile for achievement (ANNEX B provides more detail of the savings plan):

General Fund Efficiency 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 TOTAL Strategy £ £ £ £ £ Major Procurements 100,000 275,000 100,000 600,000 1,075,000 Asset Management 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 Growth 65,000 150,000 250,000 300,000 765,000 Income Generation 305,000 355,000 100,000 250,000 1,010,000 Rationalisation 141,000 - - - 141,000 TOTAL 661,000 830,000 475,000 1,175,000 3,141,000

Page 42 4.3.6. To date, £335,490 in savings have been realised against the 2017/18 efficiency target. A review will be undertaken in preparation for the February 2018 update to assess if any reprofiling needs to be undertaken, but at this stage, progress is good and it is anticipated that the 2017/18 efficiency target will be achieved.

4.3.7. However, continued progression against the efficiency programme is dependent on achieving significant savings as a result of the alternative delivery model for Waste, Streets and Parks via the transfer of services to trading company Alliance Environment Services, as well as a review of leisure provision. There are also significant income generation targets focusing on housing and economic growth, linked to the approval of the Local Plan.

4.3.8. There is a forecast deficit of £99,210 in 2021/22 (year 4 of this plan). At this stage, there is no additional efficiency requirement built in, this will be dependent on the progression of the current efficiency programme and updates to current financial assumptions going forward.

4.3.9. A further exercise reviewing the revenue underspends of recent years will also take place during the 2018/19 budget setting process. The review will identify areas, which have consistently underspent against the base budget, with a view to removing the excess provision. Any budget adjustments will be used to support the Efficiency & Rationalisation Strategy.

4.4. Member Priority Actions / Projects

4.4.1. During the development of the Corporate Plan a number of priority actions have been identified and prioritised by members. These are as follows:

Page 43

Financial Implications

Costs Member Priority Actions / Projects Firm - in Costs not (y/n) understood - plans yet known not in plans Environment

Refresh the processes for dealing with enforcement action against environmental crime (fly tipping and littering) in Y  order to ensure that there is zero tolerance Agree and implement actions that will ensure that the waste collection service can deal with the reducing levels Y  of recycling income and recycling credits Agree an approach that results in joint operating arrangements with High Peak for waste collection and Y  street cleansing Reduce the Council’s energy consumption and associated Y costs 

Customer Services

Implement the agreed Customer Services Strategy Y  Agree and implement an approach to bring about effective Y channel shift  Agree and implement a plan for further improvement of the Y Council’s website  Review and revise processes to ensure that they are focused upon the customer and are effectively aligned Y  across services Develop a plan to ensure better sharing of information N between services and with partners

Planning & Property

Develop and implement a new approach that ensures that the planning applications process is quicker, linked to Y  growth and focussed upon increasing income Develop and implement plans to extend the public market Y operation in Leek  Develop and implement a plan which will address the Y planning enforcement backlog  Ensure that delegations in respect of planning applications are appropriately applied and that Parish Council views’ N are taken into account Implement a system to ensure that planning conditions N implementation is tracked effectively

Page 44

Financial Implications

Costs Member Priority Actions / Projects Firm - in Costs not (y/n) understood - plans yet known not in plans Leisure, Sports, Parks, Countryside and Communities Agree an approach that results in joint leisure centre Y  contract renewals across the Alliance Develop and implement a plan that is focussed on increasing footfall in Leisure Centres by the effective use of Y  off-peak capacity Work with health services to develop a plan to enhance Y leisure provision with a focus on health improvement  Identify and implement an approach to reduce the cost of Y country parks  Develop a plan to improve Brough Park with HLF support Y  Develop a strategy for further development of affordable Y and specialist housing  Develop and agree a new empty properties strategy Y  Develop and implement a plan to reduce anti-social N behaviour Develop a scheme that supports the upgrading of security N in vulnerable people’s homes Support the Community Safety Partnership with improved provision of outreach workers for dealing with domestic N violence Leader

Develop and implement a plan to identify new and Y innovative ways of generating income  Implement the Growth Fund initiative to support small Y businesses  Support the development of London Mill Y  Support the development of Cornhill Y  Support the development of improved rail links in N partnership with Stoke-on-Trent City Council Support the development of a Cinebowl / Fast Food Outlet N

Implement the town deal in Biddulph in partnership with N Biddulph Town Council

4.4.2. Any costs or revenue associated with these actions will need to be included in the MTFP. The impact of a number of them is already included in this iteration of the plan but additional work will need to be undertaken to develop a number of the actions further and at the same time identify any financial implications.

Page 45 5. Financial Forecasts

5.1 Interest Rates

5.1.1. The Bank of England Base Rate was increased from 0.25% to 0.50% at the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting on 2nd November 2017. This was a reversal of the post-EU Referendum emergency monetary stimulus implemented in August 2016 when the Base Rate was cut from 0.50% to 0.25%.

5.1.2. The MPC also gave forward guidance that they expected to increase Bank Rate only twice more in the next three years to reach 1.0% by 2020. Commentary continues that economic forecasting remains difficult with so many external influences weighing on the UK, therefore forecasts are likely to be subject to change.

5.1.3. The overall longer run trend is for gilt yields and PWLB rates to rise, albeit gently. Borrowing should be considered where appropriate to the strategy with a view to locking in lower rates and the cost of carry as trends begin to rise.

5.1.4. Based on the current forecasts, changes in investment income and borrowing costs are highlighted below:-

Investment Income 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

£ £ £ £ Changes in Investment Income (32,760) (33,510) (46,390) (25,930) Changes in Borrowing costs (3,780) 9,750 (11,750) (1,800)

(36,540) (23,760) (58,140) (27,730)

5.2. Inflationary Projections

5.2.1. The Retail Price Index (RPI) and Consumer Price Index (CPI) 12 month rate, as at September 2017, stood at 3.85% and 2.94% respectively. Inflation forecasts are made reflecting the composition of the Council’s expenditure, resulting in an inflation rate specific to the Council.

5.2.2. The MTFP presented to members in February 2017 was premised on inflation assumptions at that time. Those inflationary assumptions have now been rolled forward a further 12 months to incorporate the 2021/22 financial year and have been updated to reflect the latest information on trends in Council expenditure. The additional costs to the Council arising from inflation are forecast in the table below.

Page 46 Expenditure/Income 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

£ £ £ £ Employee Costs 287,140 265,210 255,020 247,200 Premises Costs 45,440 33,690 30,810 27,130 Transport 14,270 12,320 11,940 10,770 Supplies and Services 78,200 67,240 65,310 58,800 In -Year Inflation Pressure 425,050 378,460 363,080 343,900

5.3. Budgetary Demand

5.3.1. The Medium Term Financial Plan presented to Council in February 2017 analysed and projected forward both income and expenditure. This has been revised to reflect known changes in budgetary demand.

5.3.2. The current known changes in budgetary demand are highlighted below:-

Increased / (Reduced) Budget Demand 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 £ £ £ £ Reduction in level of Parish Council Local Council (13,780) (13,830) - - Tax Support Uniforms – Customer Services 2,500 (2,500) 2,500 (2,500) DWP – Benefits Admin Grant reduction 13,500 - - - Insurance – Increased Limits of Indemnity 6,000 - - - Insurance - Cut in Discount Rate 9,000 - - - End of WWI Centenary 10,000 (10,000) - - Customer Services redeployment (13,720) - - - - Markets Promotion – Temp post 26,150 - (26,150) - Markets Promotion – Income generation (3,700) (3,300) - - Tourism Marketing – External contribution (13,800) Abolition of Credit Card charges 3,200

Total 25,350 (29,630) (23,650) (2,500)

5.4. Budget Growth

5.4.1. In previous years, very few additions in respect of budget growth have been included in the MTFP. It is assumed in light of the financial pressures faced by the Council, that any local issues that necessitate budget growth will be financed by internal spending reductions elsewhere. Occasionally, however, it is necessary to include budget growth to meet spending commitments.

5.4.2. The following items of budget growth have been included in this version of the Medium Term Financial Plan.

Page 47 Budget Growth 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 £ £ £ £ Cheadle Market - Running Costs 6,500 - - - Service strengthening - Tourism 15,200 - - -

Total 21,700 - - -

5.5. Pensions

5.5.1. The last triennial actuarial valuation of the Staffordshire Pension Fund took place in 2016. At this valuation, the Staffordshire Moorlands portion of the Fund was in deficit by £24.8 million and was 61% funded.

5.5.2. The 2016 valuation determined the level of contributions necessary for the following 3 year period (2017 – 2020). The Council was required to contribute 16.6% of pensionable pay plus the equivalent of £633,000 per annum in secondary payments with effect from 2017/18.

5.5.3. In year 3 of the MTFP (2020/21) the contributions necessary will be revised by a further revaluation scheduled to take place in 2019. Provision for an increase in contributions of £125,000 in both 2020/21 and 2021/2022 has been included in this iteration.

5.5.4. These additional pension costs are shown in the employee inflation element of the MTFP.

Page 48 6. Funding & Income Generation

6.1. Council Tax

6.1.1. The 2010 settlement heralded the introduction of 0% Council Tax increases, restricting the capacity of Local Authorities to raise council tax to meet budget pressures and cuts in Central Government funding. Government initially provided funding to mitigate the shortfall in local authority income between 2011/12 and 2015/16.

6.1.2. The Council has the capacity to vary Council Tax levels, following the abolition of capping. However the Council’s ability to increase Council Tax by more than 1.99% is subject to referendum. In 2017/18, the Council increased Council Tax applying a 1.9% increase.

6.1.3. It is assumed at this stage that a 1.9% Council Tax increase will be implemented in 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22.

6.1.4. Provision for tax base growth remains unchanged from the levels assumed in February. A provisional figure has been included for Year 4. Further work will be carried out in the course of the next few months to recalculate likely changes in the tax base. Updated figures will be included in the February iteration of the MTFP.

6.1.5. The table below sets out the additional yield from Council Tax currently assumed in the Medium Term Financial Plan:

Increased Council Tax Income 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

£ £ £ £ Council Tax increase (95,530) (98,230) (101,070) (104,020) Revenue from tax base growth (46,360) (51,670) (54,160) (54,000) TOTAL (141,890) (149,900) (155,230) (158,020)

6.2. Business Rates Retention

6.2.1. The 2013/14 Local Government Finance Settlement saw the introduction of the new business rates retention system, replacing the previous system of financing with a system based on the retention of business rates.

6.2.2. Under the current system, the Authority retains 40% of Business Rates less a tariff that is payable into a pool maintained by a number of Staffordshire Authorities. This amount is then compared to a Funding Baseline (estimated at £2,519,400 for 2018/19): any amount in excess of this Baseline is subject to levy, or conversely if the amount of retained Business Rates is below this Baseline, the loss is capped by a safety net payment. The MTFP does not anticipate the Council falling below the Baseline.

Page 49 6.2.3. As part of the Staffordshire Pool, the levy or the safety net payment is made to or from the Pool instead of Central Government. If the Council was not in the Staffordshire Pool it would have to pay 50p in the £1 to the Government as a levy, effectively limiting the income the Council can gain from business rates growth. However, as part of the Pool, the Council is able to retain 40% of this levy; meaning that each £1 achieved above the baseline, is distributed as follows:

 70p is retained by the Council;  20p is paid to a Central Incentive Fund which is managed by the Pool Board;  10p is paid to a Contingency Fund maintained by the Pool Board to assist should a safety net payment be triggered.

The benefit to the Council of being part of the Pool arrangement is estimated to be approximately £180,000 in 2018/19.

6.2.4. In October 2015, the Government announced a forthcoming package of reforms to the Business Rates Retention System including a move to local government retaining 100% of the rates that they received with an end to Revenue Support Grant.

6.2.5. In outline the proposals for reform are as follows: • Local authorities will retain 100% of BR to fund local spending on services; • The new system will be in place by the end of the current Parliament • Local authorities with be able to retain income from growth – i.e. there will be no levy; • The reform will be fiscally neutral and local authorities will have new responsibilities and / or central government grants will be phased out; • Local authorities will have the ability to reduce rates – there will be the ability to increase for combined authority mayors; and • The new system will retain a system of tariffs and top ups subject to a fundamental review of needs.

6.2.6. In July 2016 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published two consultation papers: • Self-sufficient local government: 100% BR Retention; and • BR Reform - Fair Funding Review: Call for evidence on Needs and Redistribution.

6.2.7. The Council responded to the consultation documents, detail of which was reported to Cabinet on 20th September 2016.

6.2.8. There remains uncertainly surrounding how the new system will be phased in and in what form. Following invitation from DCLG, Staffordshire Authorities have made an application to become a pilot area for 100% Business Rates Retention. Further updates on this and the progress of 100% retention schemes generally will be presented as more information is released. For the purpose of the MTFP, no financial assumptions have been included based on the proposed new system or potential pilots, these will be fed into the plans once we have more certainty around how the new system will operate.

Page 50 6.2.9. The MTFP anticipates that Business Rates retention will be above the baseline. Net income is somewhat suppressed due to the award of reliefs including increased small business rate relief, multiplier cap, supporting small businesses and local discretionary relief. To compensate for the loss of business rates income resulting from the reliefs, funding has to date been made available to Councils under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. The MTFP assumes both the extension of reliefs and Section 31 grants will continue.

6.2.10. The forecast level of Business Rates retention has reduced since the previous iteration of the MTFP in February 2017 following a review of the appeals provision methodology on the 2017 rateable value list. The impact of the reduction on the life of the plan is partially offset from the resulting decrease in levies payable and the prudent assumption that funding would not increase as a result of the 2017 revaluation.

6.2.11. Reduced levels of retention are most significant in year 1 of the plan. This is a result of reductions in net income from successful appeals and new reliefs awarded as a result of the Chancellor’s budget which were not known at the time of budget setting. The reliefs are funded by S31 grants as described above – this creates a surplus on business rates retention in the current year on the general fund, but a collection fund deficit in year 1 of this plan. Therefore it is appropriate to ring fence the surpluses being forecast in 2017/18 to fund the distribution of the deficit being created in year 1.

6.2.12. Further changes in the level of the Council’s business rates will be impacted by a range of factors, including the Staffordshire Pool’s success in generating new and retaining existing business within its area. At this stage, predicted levels of business rates income are based on known and expected changes to the business rates listing.

Business Rates Retention 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 £ £ £ £ In year: Baseline Funding (2,519,400) (2,599,920) (2,683,020) (2,768,780) Achievement against Baseline 103,380 41,600 13,970 11,140 Section 31 Grant (786,010) (761,230) (753,650) (772,450) Total (3,202,030) (3,319,550) (3,422,700) (3,530,090) Change between years: Business Rates retained (188,400) (142,300) (110,730) (88,590) Section 31 Grant 81,560 24,780 7,580 (18,800) Total (106,840) (117,520) (103,150) (107,390)

6.3. Collection Fund

6.3.1. The Council maintains a Collection Fund to record the receipt of Council Tax and Business Rates and their distribution to precepting authorities. Any surplus or deficit generated is distributed or recovered from the preceptors in subsequent years.

Page 51

6.3.2. The collection fund assumptions regarding Council Tax remain unaltered from the previous version of the MTFP presented in February 2017. Further work will be carried out over the next few months to update these assumptions and revised figures will be included in the February 2018 MTFP. At this stage, it is expected that the Staffordshire Moorlands share of a surplus, in respect of Council Tax, will be £57,710 in 2018/19.

6.3.3. It is assumed that a deficit, after providing for appeals, of £1,148,730 will be distributed in 2018/19 in respect of retained Business Rates generated in the current and previous years. Staffordshire Moorlands’ share of this deficit will be £459,490. It is assumed the Business Rates element of the collection fund will break even in future years, leaving no surplus or deficit for distribution.

6.3.4. These and future year movements are set out in the table below:

Changes in Collection Fund Income 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 £ £ £ £ Council Tax 7,580 (1,390) (1,440) - Business Rates 331,810 (459,490) - - Total 339,390 (460,880) (1,440) -

6.4. Income from Government Grants

Revenue Support Grant

6.4.1. The current MTFP, reported to Council in February 2017, includes the phased elimination of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) announced by the Government in October 2015.

6.4.2. This revision of the MTFP maintains the profile of RSG reduction proposed by the Government as part of the 4 year settlement in February 2016. Reductions of £554,840 (31%), £344,450 (19%) and £347,000 (20%) in 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 respectively are included. This results in no RSG being included in the Authority’s funding by 2019/20.

6.4.3. Local Authorities were required to submit an efficiency plan to Government by 14th October 2016 if they wanted to accept the 4 year settlement. The plan should set out what the Council intends to do in order to address the challenge of financial sustainability. If the four year offer is not accepted the Council would be subject to the existing annual process for determining the local government finance settlement. Allocations could be subject to additional reductions dependent on the fiscal climate and the need to make further savings to reduce the deficit.

6.4.4. The Council accepted the 4 year settlement and submitted an efficiency plan in November 2016 (this was attached to the November 2016 MTFP update)

New Homes Bonus

Page 52

6.4.5. New Homes Bonus (NHB) is aimed at encouraging local authorities to grant planning permission for the building of new houses, in return for additional revenue.

6.4.6. Consultation on the future format of New Homes Bonus was carried out in 2016 with the outcome being included in the settlement details released in December 2016. The main changes to the scheme, which came into effect on 1st April 2017, were incorporated into the February 2017 MTFP. These were:-

 The reduction in the number of years for which the Bonus is paid from the current 6 years to 5 years in 2017/18; to be followed by a further reduction to 4 years in 2018/19;  The removal of New Homes Bonus paid on development below a 0.4% baseline; representing the percentage of housing that would have been built anyway.

6.4.7. Further changes, proposed in the consultation, have been put on hold to be considered for implementation in 2018/19 (no further update on this has been received as yet). These include:

 Withholding the Bonus from areas where an authority does not have a Local Plan in place; and  Abating the Bonus in circumstances where planning permission for a new development has only been granted on appeal.

6.4.8. Under the new rules the Council expects to receive New Homes Bonus of £123,620 in respect of 2018/19. This has been incorporated into the MTFP together with anticipated receipts of £19,120 in respect of 2019/20; 2020/21 and 2021/22. These amounts assume no detrimental increase in the Government’s (0.4%) deadweight baseline.

6.4.9. The total New Homes Bonus included in the MTFP over the 4 year period is £1.53 million. This is on a diminishing trend as the more generous early years awards drop off over the medium term. The MTFP anticipates £698,390 in 2018/19; £469,090 in 2019/20; £204,950 in 2020/21; and £180,970 in 2021/22.

6.4.10. The Efficiency and Rationalisation Programme includes £400,000 in additional New Homes Bonus over the next 4 years, arising out of stimulated housing growth. Any growth in New Homes Bonus during the course of this plan will be applied against this target.

6.4.11. The Council’s commitment to encouraging the building of new homes also has the effect of generating additional revenue from an increase in the council tax base. However, increased costs are potentially incurred in servicing the needs of the additional properties.

Page 53 Local Council Tax Support Grant

6.4.12. The Council operates a scheme whereby funding received from Central Government in respect of Local Council Tax Support is passed on to the Parishes by means of an annual grant. The allocation of this grant is based on the eligibility of parish residents for Council Tax discounts.

6.4.13. The level of resources made available for this grant has been reduced each year in line with the reduction in overall Government funding suffered by the Authority. The Medium Term Financial Plan assumes that this approach will continue (see changed budget demand as set out in table 5.3.2 above).

Summary of Income from Government Grants

6.4.14. The table below summarises the movement in Government funding from the 2016/17 baseline:-

Government Grant 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 (gain) / loss of funding (baseline) (actual) (forecast) (forecast) (forecast) (forecast)

£ £ £ £ £ £ Revenue Support Grant (1,246,290) 554,840 344,450 347,000 - - Rural Services Delivery (14,930) (33,580) 11,190 (11,190) 15,000 15,000 Grant Transition Grant - (4,800) 20 4,780 New Homes Bonus (1,264,390) 318,820 247,180 229,300 264,150 23,980

Change in Govt Funding (2,525,610) 835,280 602,840 569,890 279,150 38,980

6.4.15. The changes shown in the table above mean that the Government grant funding received by the Council will have reduced to £199,470 by 2021/22, compared to the £2,525,610 received in 2016/17.

6.5. Fees and Charges

6.5.1. Charging for local services makes a significant contribution to the Council’s finances. The Council also uses charging to influence individual choices and behaviour, and to bring other benefits to local communities. The Council’s Charging Policy sets out the following principles for establishing the level of fees and charges:

 The cost of providing services should be fully met by income  There is a standard approach to concessions for those on low incomes  Where a subsidy is agreed, this should be used to support the development of Council services in accordance with priorities  Subsidies should be reconfirmed annually

6.5.2. The annual revision of the Council’s fees and charges will take place over the next few months, which will also incorporate some of the work undertaken as

Page 54 part of the Income Generation project. The outcome of which will be reported in February.

6.5.3. The Medium Term Financial Plan assumes that the Council will increase fees and charges (and other income) broadly in line with inflation. However, it is also recognised that certain income streams (such as car parking, planning receipts) may not increase each year and that other income streams (such as grants and rental income) are fixed or subject to periodic review. The annual total expected from this source has been reduced from £55,000 recognising the significant overlap in income generation included in the Efficiency and Rationalisation Programme (see 4.3 above).

6.5.4. The projected revenue from increased fees and charges (and other income) is summarised in the table below:

Increased Fees and Changes 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

£ £ £ £ Revenue from increased Fees and Charges (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000)

Total (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000)

Page 55 7. Risks, Contingencies & Use of Reserves

7.1. Risk Identification and Management

7.1.1. The early identification and management of risks is critical to the Budget and Medium Term Financial Planning process. Risks are assessed, mitigated and actively managed to ensure that the Council delivers its services effectively within the funding at its disposal. The principal risks to the Medium Term Financial Plan are summarised in ANNEX C.

7.1.2. Risk areas will be closely monitored and reviewed on an on-going basis and remedial action taken as appropriate.

7.1.3. The table below highlights specific financial risks that are embedded within this Medium Term Financial Plan:

Revenue Risks Capital Risks  Inflationary assumptions  Interest rates  Interest rates  External funding  Revenue consequences of capital  Capital receipts  Housing benefits  Capacity to deliver capital  Fees and charges programme  Universal Credit  Project overspend  Business Rates  Project overrun  Council Tax collection  External factors (e.g. planning  Government grants objections, judicial reviews etc.  Financial benefits from partnerships / leading to project delay) shared services  Housing Joint Venture  Pension costs  Suppliers / Contractors  Insurance costs  Weather  Waste management costs

7.2. Contingencies

7.2.1. The Medium Term Financial Plan is underpinned by a number of assumptions. These assumptions have been made in the light of currently available information. New information, when it emerges, may require the Council to alter its assumptions with a consequential effect on the Council’s financial position.

7.2.2. Key risk areas will be closely monitored and reviewed on an ongoing basis and remedial action taken. Members will receive quarterly updates on performance against the budget.

7.2.3. The Council carries reserves as a contingency for situations where risks cannot be fully mitigated. Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 requires the Chief Finance Officer (CFO) to report on the robustness of the estimates included in the budget and the adequacy of the reserves that the budget provides. The Council is currently required to hold a general (contingency) reserve of £1,000,000 to meet unforeseen expenditure.

Page 56 7.3. Use of Reserves and Balances

7.3.1. The February 2017 Medium Term Financial Plan included a £12,180 contribution from General Fund Reserves in 2017/18 in respect of Section 106 (Commuted Sum). The level of Section 106 reserve usage has been revised to £8,180 in 2018/19 and £7,700 pa thereafter.

7.3.2. The February 2017 MTFP also included the use of General Fund contingency reserves in 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 necessary to smooth timing differences in the delivery of the Efficiency Programme.

7.3.3. The Quarter Two report forecasts that there will be a surplus against budget of approximately £309,420, in which case, there will be a net use of reserves of £206,790 in 2017/18. The improved reserve position at the end of 2017/18 will need to be ring-fenced to account for the increased use of reserve required in 2018/19 as a result of business rate accounting (for appeals and reliefs as discussed in section 6.2)

7.3.4. Financial assumptions have been updated as part of this plan, but at this stage, no movement to or from reserves have been included (apart from the planned £31,280 draw from the S106 reserve over the 4 years), so the plan remains unbalanced – this will be updated as part of the February 2018 MTFP update. However, based on the deficit/surplus position (as per ANNEX D) the required use of reserves would be slightly less than reported in February 2017:-

Reserve / Balance 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL

£ £ £ £ £ £ General Fund (use)/contribtuion (516,210) (489,780) (764,720) - - (1,770,710) to reserves – February 2017

General Fund (use)/contribution (206,790) (947,870) (648,690) 234,160 134,950 (1,434,240) to reserves – November 2017

Change in use of reserves 309,420 (458,090) 116,030 234,160 134,950 336,470

7.3.5 The above position is subject to the progression of the efficiency and rationalisation programme and any updates to financial assumptions.

Page 57 8. MTFP General Fund Revenue Position

8.1. The medium term general fund revenue position is as set out in the table below, which summaries the impact of the discussions in the previous sections of the report:

Summary Revenue Position 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

£ £ £ £ Revenue Consequences of Capital Spend (section 4.2) 61,600 33,680 16,820 36,970 Interest Rate Changes (section 5.1) (36,540) (23,760) (58,140) (27,730) Inflation Pressures (section 5.2) 425,050 378,460 363,080 343,900 Increased / (Reduced) Budget Demand (section 5.3) 25,350 (29,630) (23,650) (2,500) Budget Growth (section 5.4) 21,700 - - - Increased Council Tax Income (section 6.1) (141,890) (149,900) (155,230) (158,020) Business Rates Retention (section 6.2) (106,840) (117,520) (103,150) (107,390) Changes in Collection Fund Surplus (section 6.3) 339,390 (460,880) (1,440) - Reduction in Government Grant (section 6.4) 602,840 569,890 279,150 38,980 Additional Fees and Charges (section 6.5) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) Contribution to / (Use of) Reserves & Balances (section 7) 520,210 480 - -

In Year Change in Position 1,685,870 175,820 292,440 99,210 Existing Efficiency & Rationalisation Plan (section 4.3) (830,000) (475,000) (1,175,290) - Growth Efficiencies Realised 92,000 - - -

Budget (Surplus) / Deficit 947,870 (299,180) (882,850) 99,210 Cumulative (Surplus) / Deficit 947,870 648,690 (234,160) (134,950)

8.2. The table above predicts a cumulative surplus position of £134,950 over the life of the Medium Term Financial Plan assuming the remaining Efficiency Programme savings of £2,480,290 is achieved.

8.3. The above position requires the use of £1,227,450 of contingency reserves.

8.4. ANNEX D shows the indicative detailed revenue budget for the period 2018/19 – 2021/22.

Page 58 9. Consultation

9.1. The Council is committed to consulting with residents and other stakeholders to help inform the budget setting process and spending priorities/non-priorities. A variety of techniques have been used and the approaches have been iterative, building year on year on what has gone before. The Council already holds comprehensive information gathered about residents’ spending priorities. Much of this information was gathered in times of rising expenditure. The financial challenges for the Council are now very different.

9.2. The consultation process for 2018/19 will be undertaken via an online communication available on the Council’s website, which summarises the finanicial challenges and invites comment on the plan. There will also be reference included within the December e-newsletter issued by Regeneration to local businesses which will include a brief narrative with links to on-line information.

9.3. It will be particularly important that the Council, as it makes difficult budgetary decisions, is able to evidence that it has considered the impact of its decisions on groups with ‘protected characteristics’.

9.4. Going forward, the Council will be developing a timetable of consultation, which will focus on specific emerging issues that will potentially have a significant impact on the Council’s finances over the medium term.

Page 59 ANNEX A

Proposed Capital Projections (2017/18 to 2021/22)

Capital Schemes 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Total

£ £ £ £ £ £ Asset Management Plan Council Offices/ Public Buildings 501,710 780,430 399,400 113,470 713,190 2,508,200 Leisure Centres 153,300 200,000 - - 1,822,780 2,176,080 Car Parks - 250,000 218,000 218,000 - 686,000 Infrastructure 262,650 210,710 56,000 62,000 105,000 696,360 917,660 1,441,140 673,400 393,470 2,640,970 6,066,640

Affordable Housing Project ------

Growth Fund ------

Private Housing Grants 531,630 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 5,375,630

ICT Projects 104,310 19,390 19,390 19,390 19,390 181,870

Other Schemes Conservation 51,760 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 201,760 Other Housing Projects ------Street Scene & Depots ------Outdoor Sports Facilities 14,000 - - - - 14,000 Play Facilities 76,000 114,000 - - - 190,000 Other Projects Provision - 500,000 200,000 - - 700,000 141,760 664,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 1,155,760

TOTAL PROGRAMME 1,695,360 3,335,530 2,153,790 1,673,860 3,921,360 12,779,900

CONTRIBUTIONS 758,060 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 1,211,000 5,602,060

NET PROGRAMME 937,300 2,124,530 942,790 462,860 2,710,360 7,177,840

Page 60 ANNEX B

Summary of Approved Efficiency and Rationalisation Strategy (February 2017)

Efficiency 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 TOTAL £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Major Procurements Ansa Joint Venture 100 200 100 100 500 Leisure Centres - - - 500 500 Facilities - 75 - - 75 100 275 100 600 1,075 Asset Management Asset Rationalisation 50 50 25 25 150 50 50 25 25 150 Growth Housing Growth 50 50 150 150 400 Business Growth 15 50 50 150 265 Industrial Units - 50 50 - 100 65 150 250 300 765 Income Generation Fees & Charges 125 175 100 250 650 Affordable Housing 100 100 - - 200 Advertising / Sponsorship 30 30 - - 60 Commercial Property - 50 - - 50 Enhanced Trading 50 - - - 50 305 355 100 250 1,010 Rationalisation Management Staffing 100 - - - 100 Channel Shift - - - - - Service Rationalisation 41 - - - 41 141 - - - 141

TOTAL 661 830 475 1,175 3,141

Page 61 ANNEX C

Medium Term Financial Plan – Principal Risks

Risk Category Risk Mitigation and Controls

Financial Robustness of financial Structured project management Implications assumptions within Efficiency arrangements have been put in place with and Rationalisation Strategy detailed business cases for each initiative – these will be strengthened in the service review process

Financial Additional financial pressures The strategy is kept under constant review Implications emerge – cost & income and adjustments will be made where necessary

Service Interruptions to key services or Resource implications and impact are Continuity performance standards identified as part of the business case process. Service continuity and maintenance of standards of service are key requirements of any new proposals

Corporate Maintaining stakeholder Ongoing review of standards of internal Governance confidence; lack of clarity on control (e.g. Financial Procedure Rules accountability reviewed and updated). Internal Audit Plan will be reviewed to account for the new approach proposed in the Efficiency & Rationalisation Strategy

Management of Management of corporate and Progress with achievement of aims will be Change local, cultural change; monitored through an effective performance behavioural risks; residual management structure. Investment has effects of aggregation; been made in a new approach to proposed changes to Organisational Development. organisational structure, roles & responsibilities

People Risks Impact of cultural changes; Continuing communications process for the assessment of skills; delivery of transformation programme recruitment & retention; capacity issues

Key Projects & Managing changes to shared The project management methodology Partnerships service delivery arrangements provides for an adequate transition where there are changes in service delivery

Performance Adequacy of framework to Risk management processes are Management monitor transition embedded

Page 62 Risk Category Risk Mitigation and Controls

Reputation and Maintaining existing partner Continuing communications process for the Relationship confidence delivery of transformation programme Risks

Programme Delays in implementation of Effective governance arrangements in place Delivery efficiency savings to monitor plans.

Executive Directors and Senior Managers own delivery of efficiencies.

Executive Director (Transformation) appointed as programme director.

Programme A number of the efficiency / Structured project management approach is Delivery rationalisation initiatives are in place for delivery including effective not achieved exception reporting

The strategy is kept under constant review

Identification of further efficiency / rationalisation opportunities through benchmarking / effective member working groups

Political Support Lack of Members support for Regular reporting and member briefings Plan. including effective scrutiny arrangements

Page 63 ANNEX D

Proposed Revenue Projections (2018/19 to 2021/22)

2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Budget Heading Projection Projection Projection Projection £ £ £ £ Employees 8,560,990 8,826,200 9,055,070 9,302,270 Premises 1,938,950 1,972,640 2,003,450 2,030,580 Transport 1,203,260 1,215,580 1,227,520 1,238,290 Supplies & Services 4,553,350 4,608,090 4,675,900 4,732,200 Benefits 5,010 5,010 5,010 5,010 Borrowing 279,950 346,650 350,760 385,930 Parish Grant re Council Tax Support 13,830 0 0 0 Financing Costs 555,000 555,000 555,000 555,000

Total Expenditure 17,110,340 17,529,170 17,872,710 18,249,280

Fees and Charges / Other Income (5,740,300) (5,768,600) (5,793,600) (5,818,600)

Interest Receipts (71,760) (105,270) (151,660) (177,590)

Ascent LLP Income (546,690) (569,960) (569,000) (569,000)

Recharges 0 0 0 0

Net Expenditure 10,751,590 11,085,340 11,358,450 11,684,090

Council Tax (5,169,800) (5,319,700) (5,474,930) (5,632,950)

Revenue Support Grant (351,780) - - -

Business Rates Retention (3,202,030) (3,319,550) (3,422,700) (3,530,090)

Rural Service Delivery Grant (37,320) (48,510) (33,510) (18,510)

New Homes Bonus (698,390) (469,090) (204,940) (180,960)

Earmarked Reserves (8,180) (7,700) (7,700) (7,700)

Collection Fund 401,780 (59,100) (60,540) (60,540)

Total Financing (9,065,720) (9,223,650) (9,204,320) (9,430,750)

Cumulative Deficit / (Surplus) 1,685,870 1,861,690 2,154,130 2,253,340

Efficiency Requirement (cumulative) (830,000) (1,305,000) (2,480,290) (2,480,290) Growth Efficiency realised (cumulative) 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000

In Year Deficit / (Surplus) 947,870 648,690 (234,160) (134,950)

Page 64 Agenda Item 8.1

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Constitution Review Working Party

4 December 2017

TITLE: Review of the Composition of the Audit and Accounts and Standards Committees

CONTACT OFFICER: Linden Vernon – Senior Officer (Governance and Member Support)

WARDS INVOLVED: Non-Specific

1. Reason for the Report

1.1 To review and propose revised arrangements for the composition of the Council’s Audit and Accounts Committee and Standards Committee.

2. Recommendation

2.1 That the Constitution Review Working Party considers the revised composition of the Audit and Accounts Committee and Standards Committee as proposed in paragraph 3.3 of this report for recommendation to Council.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Each year at Annual Council the Authority appoints members to its various committees. These include appointments to the Audit and Accounts Committee and Standards Committee. As the composition of these committees has not been reviewed for some time it is considered appropriate to reassess these elements of each committee. The membership for each of these particular meetings is provided in Articles 9 and 10 of the Council’s Constitution (extracts are provided in Appendix A) and is summarised as follows:

. Seven elected members of the Council; . Up to two Town or Parish Councillors (non-voting); . The Council’s Independent Person and their substitutes are also invited to attend and participate at committee meetings but are not entitled to vote at meetings.

3.2 In comparison to the Council’s other committees the number of District Council members is relatively low. This therefore means that the risk of

Page 65 meetings being inquorate is increased and that there could be better representation and engagement with elected members of the District Council.

3.3 In order to address these points it is proposed that:

. The number of elected members of the Council be increased from seven to nine and that these additional places assimilate the current positions allocated for Town/Parish Councillors. Given that the majority of elected members of the District are also Town/Parish Councillors the link with these councils will be retained.

. Given the statutory involvement of the Council’s Independent Persons in dealing with Standards complaints and the desire to provide transparency and independent assurance, the Council’s Independent Person and their substitutes continue to be invited to committee meetings (but not be entitled to vote).

3.4 The Constitution Working Party is requested to consider the proposed changes above for recommendation to Council. Should these changes be approved, consequential amendments will be made to the Council’s Constitution.

4. Implications

4.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998) Not applicable.

4.2 Workforce Not applicable.

4.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment Not applicable.

4.4 Financial Considerations Not applicable.

4.5 Legal The Articles of the Council’s Constitution would be updated following approval of the recommendations contained within this report.

4.6 Sustainability Not applicable.

4.7 Internal and External Consultation The Constitution Review Working Party is asked to consider the proposed changes for recommendation to Council.

4.8 Risk Assessment Not applicable.

Page 66

Mark Trillo Executive Director (People) and Monitoring Officer

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers Extracts of Articles 9 Attached at Appendix A to Linden Vernon and 10 of the Council’s this report. Senior Officer (Governance and Member Constitution Support) Tel: 01538 395613 Email: [email protected]

Page 67 APPENDIX A

Article 9 - The Standards Committee (extract)

9.1 Standards Committee The Council has established a Standards Committee.

9.2 Composition

(a) Membership. The Standards Committee will comprise:

 seven elected members of the Council, appointed proportionally;

 up to two Town or Parish Council members may be co-opted on to the Committee as non-voting members.

(b) Independent Person. The Council’s Independent Person and their substitutes will be invited to attend and participate at committee meetings but will not be entitled to vote at meetings.

Article 10 - Audit & Accounts Committee (extract)

10.1 Composition

(a) Membership. The Committee shall consist of the following Members:-

 7 Councillors appointed by the Council for such term of office as determined by the Council.

The Council’s Independent Person and their substitutes and up to 2 town or parish representatives will be invited to attend and participate at committee meetings but will not be entitled to vote at meetings.

Page 68 Agenda Item 9.

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Report to Council

6 December 2017

TITLE: Parliamentary Boundary Review

EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR: Councillor Tony Hall – Portfolio Holder for

Customer Services

CONTACT OFFICER: Paul Rushworth – Corporate Services

Manager (Legal and Elections)

WARDS INVOLVED: All wards

Appendices Attached:

Appendix A - Revised proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the West Midlands

1. Reason for the Report

1.1 To inform Members about a consultation exercise by the Boundary Commission for England in respect of the Parliamentary Boundary Review 2018 and the revised proposals to make Staffordshire Moorland’s Parliamentary boundary coterminous with Staffordshire Moorland’s District boundary.

2. Recommendation

2.1 To authorise officers to submit a response to the consultation exercise on behalf of the Council in support of the revised proposals.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 Constituency boundaries are kept under regular review to ensure that Members of Parliament represent roughly the same number of constituents at Westminster. The reviews are carried out by the Boundary Commissions for England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. These are independent bodies that propose constituencies that must meet the Rules for Redistribution set out in statute. The Commissions are currently undertaking a consultation exercise on

Page 69 revised proposals in respect of the 2018 Parliamentary Boundary Review.

3.2 This report confirms the Boundary Commission’s revised proposals which reflect the initial proposals for Staffordshire Moorlands, and invites members to consider the Council’s response to these proposals.

4. Options and Analysis

4.1 The first option is to note the report and decide not to submit a response to the Boundary Commission’s consultation exercise.

4.2 The second option is to note the contents of the report and to authorise officers to send a response to the consultation exercise which reflects the Council’s views on the proposed changes to the boundary affecting the constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands.

5. Implications

5.1 Community Safety - (Crime and Disorder Act 1998)

There are no specific crime and disorder implications.

5.2 Workforce

The consultation exercise does not affect the workforce.

5.3 Equality and Diversity/Equality Impact Assessment

The Boundary Commission should carry out an equality and impact assessment as part of their response to the consultation responses including any submission on behalf of the Council.

5.4 Financial Considerations

There are no specific financial considerations linked to the consultation exercise other than officer time preparing a response.

5.5 Legal

The process by which constituency boundaries are changed is set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended. As part of the process, each Boundary Commission publishes revised recommendations for constituencies based on the Rules for Redistribution. The consultation period runs until 11 December 2017. This will be the final time the Council will get to give the Commission their views on the latest proposals before the Commission’s recommendations are reported to Parliament in September 2018

Page 70

5.6 Sustainability

The proposal supports a sustainable system of electoral administration.

5.7 Internal and External Consultation

The Boundary Commission is consulting on this proposal. Copies of the initial proposals have been deposited at Moorlands House, Stockwell Street, Leek for the convenience of Staffordshire Moorlands residents who may like to respond to the consultation exercise. There are also links to the consultation exercise from the Council’s web page.

5.8 Risk Assessment

There has been no identified risk to considering the consultation exercise.

Mark Trillo Executive Director (People) and Monitoring Officer

Web Links and Location Contact details Background Papers

Revised proposals Click Here. Paul Rushworth for new Corporate Services Parliamentary Manager (Legal and constituency Elections) boundaries in the West Midlands Guide paul.rushworth@staffsm to the 2018 oorlands.gov.uk Review of Parliamentary constituencies

6. Background and Detail

6.1 The Boundary Commission are currently conducting a review of Parliamentary constituency boundaries on the basis of rules set by Parliament in 2011. These rules require them to reduce the number of constituencies in the UK and make more equal the number of electors in each constituency. The rules set out in the legislation state that there will be 600 Parliamentary constituencies covering the UK, a reduction of 50 from the current number.

Page 71 6.2 To achieve this, the Boundary Commission must review and recommend where the new constituency boundaries should be.

Proposals for Staffordshire Moorlands

6.3 For Staffordshire Moorlands, the proposal is to make the Parliamentary boundary coterminous with the District Boundary by including five wards from the Stone Constituency (Cheadle North East, Cheadle South East, Cheadle West, Checkley and Forsbrook) and moving Newchapel (currently in Newcastle under Lyme Borough) to the constituency of Stoke on Trent North and Kidsgrove. There is further commentary on the proposed changes to Staffordshire, Newcastle and Stoke-on Trent at paragraph 3.106 of the main report at page 39.

6.4 Once the consultation on the revised proposals has closed the Commission will consider all the representations received throughout the review, before making final recommendations to the Government. The legislation states that the Commission must make final recommendations during September 2018.

.

Page 72 Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands

Page 73 Contents

Summary 3

1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5

2 Background to the 2018 Review 7

3 Revised proposals for the West Midlands 13

The sub-region split 14

Coventry and Warwickshire 15

Solihull 19

Herefordshire, Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, 20 Worcestershire, and the West Midlands metropolitan county area (less Coventry and Solihull)

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent 37

4 How to have your say 41

Annex A: Revised proposals for constituencies, 43 including wards and electorates

Page 74

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 1 Summary

Who we are and what we do initial proposals in the first and second consultations, and the conclusions we The Boundary Commission for England have reached as to how those proposals is an independent and impartial should be revised as a result. The annex non‑departmental public body, which is to each report contains details of the responsible for reviewing Parliamentary composition of each constituency in our constituency boundaries in England. revised proposals for the relevant region; maps to illustrate these constituencies can The 2018 Review be viewed on our website or in hard copy at a local place of deposit near you. We have the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all the Parliamentary What are the revised proposals constituencies in England. We are for the West Midlands? currently conducting a review on the basis of new rules laid down by Parliament. We have revised the composition of These rules involve a significant reduction 36 of the 53 constituencies we proposed in the number of constituencies in England in September 2016. After careful (from 533 to 501), resulting in the number consideration, we have decided not to of constituencies in the West Midlands make any revisions to the composition reducing by six, to 53. The rules also of the remaining 17. In one instance, require that every constituency – apart however, we have revised our proposed from two specified exceptions1 – must name for a constituency. have an electorate that is no smaller than 71,031 and no larger than 78,507. Under our revised proposals, six constituencies in the West Midlands How did we conduct the would be the same as they are under the 2018 Review? existing arrangements.

We published our initial proposals for As it was not always possible to allocate new boundaries in September 2016 and whole numbers of constituencies to consulted on them. We received written individual counties, our initial proposals comments and oral submissions at public grouped some local authority areas hearings held in each region. We published into sub-regions. It was also necessary all the comments we received and we held to propose some constituencies that a second consultation exercise in relation cross county or unitary authority to them in March 2017. We are very grateful boundaries. Following consideration of for all the comments that these two the representations made on our initial consultation exercises have generated. proposals, our revised proposals divide We have now completed the next stage the region into four sub-regions, as shown of the review process and we are now in the table overleaf. publishing our revised proposals. For each region, the revised proposals report sets out our analysis of all the responses to our

1 The specified exemptions in England to the rules on constituency size are the two constituencies in the Isle of Wight. Page 75

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 3 Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under revised proposals Coventry and Warwickshire 9 8 Solihull 2 2 Herefordshire, Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, 36 32 Worcestershire, and the West Midlands metropolitan county area (less Coventry and Solihull) Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent 12 11

As in our initial proposals, we have and in order to attempt to minimise proposed six constituencies that cross change from the existing pattern of county boundaries. We have proposed one constituencies. We have proposed that the constituency that contains part of Coventry two Bromsgrove district wards of Rubery and part of Warwickshire. We have North and Rubery South be included in proposed one constituency that contains a Birmingham Northfield constituency. part of Shropshire and part of Telford and We have suggested splitting three wards Wrekin, one constituency that contains part (Brierley Hill in Dudley and Greets Green of Herefordshire and part of Shropshire, and Lyng, and St. Pauls in Sandwell) one constituency that contains part of between constituencies. Herefordshire and part of Worcestershire, one constituency that contains part of In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, we Birmingham and part of Worcestershire. have made changes to the constituencies We have also proposed one constituency in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stafford, that contains part of Staffordshire and part and Stoke-on-Trent so as to reduce the of Stoke-on-Trent. amount of change to the pattern of existing constituencies. By including Coventry and Warwickshire in a sub-region, we have been able to How to have your say minimise change across these two areas and have proposed a Coventry South and We are consulting on our revised proposals Kenilworth constituency, thereby allowing for an eight-week period, from 17 October for all of the Warwick University campus to 2017 to 11 December 2017. We encourage be included in one constituency. everyone to use this final opportunity to contribute to the design of the new In Solihull, we have minimised change constituencies – the more public views we by only moving two wards between hear, the more informed our decisions will constituencies in the borough. be when we make recommendations to the Government. In Herefordshire, Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, and Worcestershire, we have made We ask everyone wishing to contribute a number of changes, including putting to the design of the new constituencies Much Wenlock in a Ludlow and Leominster to first look at the revised proposals constituency, Bromyard in a Malvern report, and accompanying maps, before and Ledbury constituency, and Drakes responding to us. The best way to respond Broughton in an Evesham constituency. to our revised proposals is through our consultation website: www.bce2018.org.uk. In the remainder of the West Midlands metropolitan county area, we have revised our initial proposals based on local views Page 76

4 Boundary Commission for England 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England?

1.1 The Boundary Commission for 1.3 Our consultation website at England (BCE) is an independent and www.bce2018.org.uk contains all impartial non-departmental public the information needed to view and body, which is required by Parliament comment on our revised proposals. You to review Parliamentary constituency can also contact us with any general boundaries in England. We conduct a enquiries by emailing information@ review of all the constituencies in England boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk, by every five years. Our role is to make calling 020 7276 1102, or by writing to: recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries. We also make The Secretary to the Commission recommendations for any changes in the Boundary Commission for England names of individual constituencies. 35 Great Smith Street London 1.2 The Chair of the Commission is SW1P 3BQ the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he or she does not participate in the formulation of the Commission’s recommendations, nor in the conduct of the review. The Deputy Chair and two further Commissioners take decisions on what recommendations to make for new constituency boundaries. They are assisted in their task by 21 assistant commissioners (two or three allocated to each of the nine regions of England). Further information about the Commissioners and assistant commissioners can be found in the ‘About us’ section of our corporate website.2

2 http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us

Page 77

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review

2.1 There are four Boundary 2.4 This is a significant change to the Commissions covering the UK with old rules under which Parliamentary separate Commissions for Scotland, boundary reviews took place, where Wales and Northern Ireland. The achieving as close to the average number Parliamentary Constituencies Act of electors in each constituency was an 1986 states that they must conduct a aim but not an overriding legal necessity. review of Parliamentary constituency For example, in England, the largest boundaries, and make recommendations constituency currently has around twice as to Government, every five years. Under many electors as the smallest. Achieving a the current review, we must report in more even distribution of electors in every September 2018. The four Commissions constituency across England, together work separately, and this report with the reduction in the total number of covers only the work of the Boundary constituencies, means that a significant Commission for England and, in particular, scale of change to the existing map of introduces our revised proposals for the constituencies is inevitable. West Midlands. 2.5 If implemented, the 2.2 Parliamentary boundaries are recommendations that we will make in important, as they define the area in September 2018 will be the first set of which voters will elect a Member of boundaries to be defined under the new Parliament. If our recommendations are rules. While there has to be a significant accepted, they would be used for the first amount of change across the country, time at the next General Election following we will, where possible, try to limit the their acceptance. extent of such change, having regard to the statutory factors. Under the 2.3 The legislation we work to states Act, we have a challenging job to do that there will be 600 Parliamentary in conducting a review of constituency constituencies covering the UK – a boundaries that is necessarily going to reduction of 50 from the current number. result, in many places, in a pattern of For England, that means that the number constituencies that is unfamiliar to the of constituencies must reduce from 533 public. Nevertheless the review has been to 501. There are also new rules that one that we have conducted in a rigorous the Commission has to adhere to when and thorough fashion. conducting the review – a full set of rules can be found in our Guide to the 2018 2.6 The revised proposals that we set Review of Parliamentary constituencies out in this report, and in the reports for (‘the Guide’),3 published in the summer the other eight regions across England, of 2016, but they are also summarised are made on the basis of the evidence we later in this chapter. Most significantly, received during two consultation exercises, the rules state that every constituency we the careful consideration of our assistant recommend (with the exception of two commissioners and the best judgement covering the Isle of Wight) must contain of the three Boundary Commissioners. between 71,031 and 78,507 electors. We are confident that these revised

3 Available at http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review. Page 78

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 7 proposals strike the best balance The rules in the legislation between the statutory factors and, having consulted twice already, we are close to 2.8 The rules contained in the legislation settling on a pattern of constituencies state that every constituency in England to recommend to Parliament next year. (except two covering the Isle of Wight) There may be particular areas across the must have an electorate of between 71,031 country where our judgement has been and 78,507 – that is, 5% either side of the a balanced and marginal one between electoral quota of 74,769. The legislation competing alternatives, and in such also states that, when deciding on cases, we have made clear that we are boundaries, the Commission may also take looking for further evidence before we into account: finalise our recommendations. In many areas we are persuaded by the evidence • special geographical considerations, we have received thus far, and we would including the size, shape and therefore require new and significantly accessibility of a constituency stronger arguments to make us depart • local government boundaries as they from our revised proposals. If it exists, existed on 7 May 2015 such new and compelling evidence would • boundaries of existing constituencies be welcome. However, we will not be • any local ties that would be broken by assisted by repetition of arguments that changes in constituencies. have already been made, and which we have already considered. The requirement 2.9 It is essential to understand that to keep constituencies within the permitted none of the factors mentioned in the list range of electors is strict, but otherwise we above overrides the necessity to achieve have sought to balance often conflicting an electorate in each constituency that considerations. Our proposals must is within the range allowed, as explained also be comprehensive. We are acutely previously. In relation to local government conscious that very often a change in boundaries in particular, it should be noted one constituency necessarily requires that we are obliged to take into account an alteration in another and sometimes local government boundaries as they the consequential alterations reverberate existed in May 2015. Our initial proposals through a whole chain of constituencies. for the region and the accompanying maps were based on the wards as they existed 2.7 The Guide contains further detailed in May 2015, and our revised proposals background, and explains all the policies contained within this report continue to and procedures that we are following in be based on those boundaries. The Guide conducting the review, in greater depth outlines further our policy on how, and to than in this consultation document. We what extent, we take into account local encourage anyone wishing to be involved government boundaries that have been in the review to read the Guide, to enable amended since 2015. greater understanding of the rules and constraints placed on the Commission, especially if they are intending to comment on our revised proposals. Page 79

8 Boundary Commission for England 2.10 In our initial proposals, we took The use of the regions used for into account the boundaries of existing European elections constituencies so far as we could, and tried to retain existing constituencies 2.12 Our proposals are based on the where possible, so long as the other nine regions used for European elections. factors could also be satisfied. As This report relates to the West Midlands. mentioned earlier in this chapter, because There are eight other separate reports of the scale of change required to fulfil containing our revised proposals for the the obligations imposed on us by the other regions. At the very beginning of the new rules, this proved difficult. Our initial 2018 Review we decided, in agreement proposals retained 12% of the existing with all the main political parties, to use constituencies in the West Midlands – these regions as a basis for working out the remainder were new constituencies our initial proposals. You can find more (although in a number of cases we were details in the Guide and on our website. able to limit the changes to existing We stated in our initial proposals report constituencies, making only minor changes that, while this approach does not prevent as necessary to enable us to comply with anyone from making proposals to us that the new rules). cross regional boundaries, we would need to have compelling reasons provided to us 2.11 Among the many arguments we to persuade us to depart from the region- heard in response to the consultations based approach. on our initial proposals was the need to have particular regard to this factor 2.13 In response to the consultations on of the rules to which we work. While our initial proposals, we did not receive some respondents put a higher value on sufficient evidence across the country to retaining existing constituency boundaries suggest that we should depart from the over the other factors in the rules, it is regional approach to this review. Therefore, the Commission’s task to balance all the this report, and all other regional reports, factors. As we set out in the course of continues to use the regional boundaries this report, our revised proposals retain six as a basis for proposals for constituencies. (10%) of the existing 59 constituencies in the West Midlands.

Page 80

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 9 Timetable for the review Stage three – consultation on representations received Stage one – initial proposals 2.16 The legislation requires us to 2.14 We began this review in February publish all the representations we received 2016 by publishing breakdowns of the on our initial proposals, and to allow electorate for each ward, local government people to send us comments on them authority and existing constituency, which for a four-week period. We published the were prepared using electorate data representations on 28 February 2017 and provided by local authorities and the Office invited comments on them until 27 March for National Statistics. These are available 2017. We received more than 7,500 unique on the data pages of our corporate written representations across the country website.4 The Commission spent a number as a whole during those four weeks. of months considering the factors outlined above and drawing up our initial proposals. Stage four – publication of We published our initial proposals for revised proposals consultation for each of England’s nine regions on 13 September 2016. 2.17 As we outline in chapter 3, having considered the evidence presented to us, Stage two – consultation on we have decided that the evidence is such initial proposals that it is appropriate to revise our initial proposals in some areas. Therefore, as we 2.15 We consulted on our initial proposals are required to do (under the legislation), for 12 weeks, from 13 September 2016 to on 17 October 2017, we are publishing 5 December 2016. This consultation period this report – Revised proposals for new also included holding 36 public hearings, constituency boundaries in the West at which people had the opportunity to Midlands – alongside eight others, one for make oral representations. We received each of the other regions in England. We more than 18,000 unique written are consulting on our revised proposals representations across the country as a for the statutory eight-week period, which whole, including more than 1,600 unique closes on 11 December 2017. Unlike the written representations relating to the West initial consultation period, there is no Midlands. We also heard more than 190 oral provision in the legislation for further representations at the four public hearings public hearings, nor is there a repeat of in the West Midlands. We are grateful to all the four-week period for commenting on those who took the time and trouble to read the representations of others. Chapter 4 and respond to our initial proposals. outlines how you can contribute during this consultation period.

4 http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/data-and-resources Page 81

10 Boundary Commission for England Stage five – final recommendations

2.18 Once the consultation on revised proposals has closed on 11 December 2017, we will consider all the representations received at this stage, and throughout the review, before making final recommendations to the Government. The legislation states that we must do this during September 2018. Further details about what the Government and Parliament must do to implement our recommendations are contained in the Guide.

2.19 At the launch of each stage of consultation, we have taken – and are continuing to take – all reasonable steps to publicise our proposals, so that as many people as possible are aware of the consultation and can take the opportunity to contribute to our review of constituencies.

Page 82

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 11 3 Revised proposals for the West Midlands

3.1 In July 2016, we arranged for 3.3 What follows in this chapter is: the appointment of two assistant commissioners for the West Midlands – • a brief recap of our initial proposals Margaret Gilmore and David Latham – • a description of the counter-proposals to assist us with the analysis of the put forward during the consultations representations received during the first • the assistant commissioners’ analysis two consultation periods. This included of the strength of the arguments chairing public hearings held in the region for adoption of any of those to collect oral evidence, as follows: counter ‑proposals • our decision on whether or not to • Birmingham: 3–4 November 2016 make changes to our proposals in the • Shrewsbury: 7–8 November 2016 given area. • Royal Leamington Spa: 10–11 November 2016 3.4 A tabular summary of the revised • Stafford: 14–15 November 2016 constituencies we now propose appears at Annex A to this report. 3.2 We asked the assistant commissioners to consider all the written 3.5 Throughout this chapter, where we and oral representations, and to make refer to a respondent’s response we also recommendations to us on whether include the reference number, i.e. BCE- our initial proposals should be revised, 12345. This reference number corresponds in light of evidence provided in the with the representations that can be representations. It is important to stress found on our consultation website at that the assistant commissioners had no www.bce2018.org.uk. All representations involvement in developing – and therefore received in response to the first two no vested interest in supporting – our initial consultations are publicly available on this proposals. Accordingly, they came to the website. The representations received in analysis with an independent mind, open response to these revised proposals will be to viable alternative proposals supported published at the end of the review. by evidence. We are incredibly grateful for the thorough and methodical approach 3.6 The use of the term ‘ward’ throughout the assistant commissioners have taken this document should be taken to mean to their work. electoral division in reference to the county unitary authority of Shropshire.

Page 83

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 13 The sub-region split and there is no natural geographical linkage or synergy across this area, nor 3.7 In our initial proposals we decided to is there any East/West major road route divide the West Midlands region into two across the bulk of the constituency. There sub-regions. These were: Staffordshire are no rail or bus linkages across the and Stoke-on-Trent; and Herefordshire, whole of constituency, and to drive from Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, one extreme of the constituency to the Warwickshire, West Midlands county, other would take about 1 hour 30 minutes. and Worcestershire. The electorate of Whilst the town of Evesham is probably Stoke-on-Trent was 179,857 and was too a maximum of 50 minutes from any point large to be allocated two constituencies in the proposed constituency, I would and too small to be allocated three anticipate that the nature of the cross constituencies. We decided to pair it with constituency links would mitigate against the neighbouring county of Staffordshire, effective political organisation across such with an allocation of 11 constituencies, an area.’ one fewer than at present. It would be necessary to pair some of the counties in 3.9 There were a large number of the rest of the region to be able to allocate objections to the inclusion of two Solihull whole numbers of constituencies, and borough wards in the initial proposals for a we decided to create one sub-region that Coventry West and Meriden constituency. contained all of the rest of the region, as Some of the representations also this would provide, at that stage, the best objected to the consequential division of reflection of the rules we work to across the neighbouring towns of Dorridge and the region as a whole. Knowle between constituencies. Dame Caroline Spelman MP (Meriden) submitted 3.8 There was a little support for our a petition with 831 names (BCE-33203 proposed sub-regions. The Labour Party and BCE-41009) objecting to the initial (BCE-33146) counter-proposal did not proposals. There were also calls for suggest any different sub-regions. Many Solihull Borough to be reviewed separately representations objected to the inclusion and allocated two constituencies, with of the Stratford-on-Avon district ward only minimal change to the two existing of Tanworth-in-Arden in the Shirley and constituencies. Many of the objections Solihull South constituency, and to the to the inclusion of the towns of Warwick inclusion of wards from Warwickshire in the and Royal Leamington Spa in separate initial proposals for an Evesham and South constituencies suggested that the town Warwickshire constituency. For example, of Kenilworth should be included in a Martin King (BCE-28477) objected and constituency with wards from the south of said ‘Firstly, the constituency would stretch the City of Coventry. from very close to the edge of Tewkesbury (at Strensham) across the Vale of Evesham and then through rural areas to be fairly proximate to Banbury (at Farnborough),

Page 84

14 Boundary Commission for England 3.10 There was some opposition to the 3.12 In the next sections of our report, cross-county constituency of Ludlow we consider each sub-region in turn, and Leominster. Some representations summarising our initial proposals followed observed that it had the largest geographic by the responses and counter-proposals area of any constituency in the region, received, our assistant commissioners’ and that it would be the fourth largest consideration of the evidence and their constituency by area in England. For recommendations, and our revised example, Keith Lawton (BCE-19056) stated proposals on the basis of the evidence ‘To put the village of Sutton Saint Nicholas received and in accordance with the into the Ludlow and Leominster boundary statutory rules for the 2018 Review. group is illogical. Sutton is only 3 miles from Hereford, whereas Ludlow is 35 miles Coventry and Warwickshire away which is a 70 mile return journey if you wanted to see your MP.’ However, 3.13 Of the nine existing constituencies in nobody suggested any alternative pairings this sub-region, only one (Coventry North for Herefordshire or Shropshire that met East) has an electorate that is currently with any level of public support. within 5% of the electoral quota. Under our initial proposals, we proposed a reduction 3.11 Our assistant commissioners of one in the number of constituencies in considered these issues carefully, and this sub-region, and we recommended felt it would be helpful to recommend that the existing Coventry North East an alternative sub-regional grouping. constituency remain unchanged. We They agreed that there should not be a proposed changes to the other eight constituency that crossed the county constituencies, and recommended boundary between Warwickshire and one constituency that crossed the Worcestershire. They decided that Warwickshire county boundary with Warwickshire should be paired with the Worcestershire, one constituency City of Coventry and allocated eight that crossed the Warwickshire county constituencies. They also accepted the boundary with Solihull Borough, and one evidence that the Borough of Solihull constituency that crossed the Coventry should be a sub-region on its own, with city boundary with Solihull Borough. two constituencies allocated. They further decided that Herefordshire, Shropshire, 3.14 There was widespread opposition Telford and Wrekin, Worcestershire, to the initial proposals for Coventry and and the five West Midlands boroughs of Warwickshire. Our proposal to include Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, the town of Warwick in a Warwick and and Wolverhampton should be joined to Stratford-on-Avon constituency led to form a sub-region, and be allocated 32 many objections, which said that the constituencies. They agreed that there towns of Warwick and Royal Leamington was no need to alter the Staffordshire and Spa should be in same constituency, as Stoke-on-Trent sub‑region. We agree with in the existing Warwick and Leamington their proposed sub-regions. constituency. For example, Ben Wesson

Page 85

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 15 (BCE-30079) on behalf of Warwick and close affiliation of the towns and the Leamington Constituency Labour Party corresponding Local Authority structure. said that ‘We believe that Warwick and Local ties would be broken. The local Leamington form a community of common economies of W&L are interconnected. interest, common culture, common trade Public services are closely interlinked. and industry and a common future. Not Warwick/Leamington has a joint forward only are the towns geographically linked plan for residential and commercial with no green space separating them, development. The proposals also split they also complement each other by their the actual town of Warwick, because the diverse strengths; Warwick as a historic proposed new constituency of Kenilworth county town and national tourist centre and Leamington would include part of and Leamington much-valued for its Warwick – the Myton and Heathcote architecture, gardens and as a retail and ward of the district – which falls within the leisure destination. To the people of the boundaries of Warwick town.’ The assistant two towns the boundaries are invisible commissioners did note that there was because they are viewed as one unit and some limited support for a division of one community.’ Maxine Godfrey (BCE- Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa, e.g. 25877) said ‘I firmly believe the towns Charles Bourne (BCE-36771), but such a of Warwick and Leamington should view did not enjoy widespread support. remain as one constituency for many reasons. It seems as if the Boundary 3.15 Our assistant commissioners Commission proposal is the result of just noted that, over the course of two days reallocating numbers in each constituency, at the public hearing in Royal Leamington with no thought to the consequences. Spa, the overwhelming majority of the The proposed boundaries do not reflect speakers spoke in favour of retaining a a recognisable geographic, nor economic Warwick and Leamington constituency, community. Warwick and Leamington are instead of putting the town of Warwick in physically attached to each other – with a constituency with the town of Stratford- many shared services. To split them apart upon-Avon, and the town of Royal with Warwick in the Stratford constituency Leamington Spa in a constituency with the and Leamington in the Kenilworth town of Kenilworth. Most of the counter- constituency is splitting them to no good proposals received suggested an identical effect. Stratford and Kenilworth are miles Warwick and Leamington constituency, from Warwick and Leamington, whereas which would satisfy those objectors to our there is no gap between Warwick and initial proposals. Leamington. It would isolate each town to the periphery of separate constituencies 3.16 While the issue of the division of the and would be to the detriment of the local towns of Warwick and Leamington Spa economy. Dividing the towns will damage cannot be considered in isolation, given the link between them and it is not in line the knock-on effects across the south of with the makeup of the local area. If each the region, our assistant commissioners is assigned to a separate constituency were persuaded by the evidence from it will not make sense in terms of the the community of the breaking of local

Page 86

16 Boundary Commission for England ties and recommended that these two by the new rail link (known as ‘Nuckle’) towns must be included in the same between the two towns and that Bedworth constituency and they therefore sought to should be included in a Coventry build recommendations that achieved this. constituency. Mr Cunningham and Mr We agree. Robinson (BCE-32278) also gave evidence in support of their counter-proposal on 3.17 There were also a number of day one at the Royal Leamington Spa objections to the division in the initial public hearing. proposals of Stratford-on-Avon district among four constituencies. Objectors 3.19 Our assistant commissioners noted suggested that by dividing the district that to include Bedworth in a Coventry between only two constituencies, the constituency would require extensive ties of residents with a Stratford-on-Avon changes to the pattern of the existing constituency would be maintained. constituencies in the north and east of Warwickshire. They also noted that 3.18 There were objections to the there had been support for the North proposed division of the City of Coventry Warwickshire and Nuneaton constituencies between constituencies. It was accepted in our initial proposals, and that there had that the electorate of the city was too been objections to any counter-proposal small to allow for the retention of three that had divided North Warwickshire constituencies, each wholly within the district between constituencies. Mark city boundary. We had included two Bramley (BCE-33857) said ‘I support Solihull wards (Knowle and Meriden) the original Boundary Commission in our initial proposals for a Coventry Proposals for the North Warwickshire West and Meriden constituency. The Constituency to include Hartshill and Arley Conservative Party (BCE-32257), the and therefore unite the whole of North Liberal Democrat Party (BCE-31732) Warwickshire Borough with Bedworth in and the Green Party (BCE-28253) all one constituency. I believe the name of suggested that the three Warwick district the constituency should change to ‘North wards making up the town of Kenilworth Warwickshire and Bedworth’ to formally (Abbey, Park Hill, and St. John’s) should include both parts of the constituency in be included in a Coventry South and the title. I reject calls to divide or break Kenilworth constituency to allow for, up the North Warwickshire Borough – it among other things, all of the campus is important and logical to keep North of Warwick University to be included Warwickshire Borough in one constituency. in one constituency. Mike O’Brien QC It has one Borough Council and should (BCE-31666), and Jim Cunningham MP have one Member of Parliament. There are (Coventry South) and Geoffrey Robinson also strong local, social, historic, economic MP (Coventry North West) (BCE-22932) and geographical ties between all the suggested that there were close links parishes in North Warwickshire, it would between the town of Bedworth, in the ] be detrimental to the community to break Borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth, and this.’ Our assistant commissioners also the City of Coventry, as demonstrated noted the objections to including part of

Page 87

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 17 the Borough of Solihull in a constituency 3.22 While there was some support for with part of the City of Coventry (see this pattern of constituencies in these Solihull sub-region below). similar counter-proposals, our assistant commissioners advised that, in light of the 3.20 The Labour Party (BCE‑33146) requirement for the Commission to have counter-proposal maintained a regard to existing constituencies, there was constituency that crossed the more change required by them than was Warwickshire and Worcestershire county necessary and rejected them both. They boundary. It also maintained the existing noted that to include the town of Bedworth Kenilworth and Southam constituency. in a Coventry constituency would require It proposed that there should be a extensive changes to our initial proposals constituency containing most of the towns for the North Warwickshire constituency, of Nuneaton and Bedworth, with wards and to neighbouring constituencies, which from the west of the city of Coventry they considered would be unnecessarily included in a constituency with wards from disruptive. They also noted the support North Warwickshire Borough. received for that proposed North Warwickshire constituency, which would 3.21 Mike O’Brien QC, the former be included in four separate constituencies MP for North Warwickshire, and Jim under this counter-proposal. They also Cunningham MP (Coventry South) and rejected the Labour Party counter-proposal Geoffrey Robinson MP (Coventry North because it did not fit with all of the West) submitted similar counter-proposals. objections received across Warwickshire. They proposed that Bedworth should be included in a Coventry West and Bedworth 3.23 The assistant commissioners constituency. The town of Kenilworth considered that, given the objections, the would be included in a Meriden and towns of Warwick and Royal Leamington Kenilworth constituency. The four northern Spa should in fact remain in the same Solihull borough wards, including the constituency, Kenilworth should be in Chelmsley Wood area, would be included a constituency with Coventry South as in a North Warwickshire constituency, discussed above, and that Stratford-on- because they claimed that there are links Avon did not then need to be divided between these two areas. The North among four constituencies. They noted Warwickshire borough ward of Curdworth that a particular counter-proposal, would be included in a Sutton Coldfield (though put forward separately by each constituency, and the North Warwickshire of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, borough ward of Newton Regis and and Green parties), which overall made Warton would be included in a Tamworth fewest changes to the existing pattern of constituency across the county boundary constituencies, would address most of with Staffordshire. these issues. It maintained a Warwick and Leamington constituency and only divided Stratford-on-Avon district between two constituencies. It included the Warwick

Page 88

18 Boundary Commission for England district ward of Radford Semele in a Rugby Bedworth had been included in the North and Southam constituency, to compensate Warwickshire constituency since 1983 for the Stratford-on-Avon district ward without being referenced in the name. As of Kineton being included in a Stratford- the constituency was not being changed on-Avon constituency. While it did not significantly from the existing constituency, retain the existing Coventry North East they decided not to recommend altering constituency unchanged, it did suggest a the name to include Bedworth. practical division of the City of Coventry into three constituencies, two of which 3.26 We agree with and adopt were wholly in Coventry. the assistant commissioners’ recommendations. 3.24 In looking at the best pattern of constituencies across Coventry and Solihull Warwickshire, our assistant commissioners advised us that the Conservative and 3.27 Of the two existing constituencies Liberal Democrat parties’ counter- in this sub-region, one has an electorate proposals were the best for this area. that is currently within 5% of the electoral They considered that there was no need quota. Under our initial proposals, we to include parts of Warwickshire in any proposed changes to both constituencies, other neighbouring county. They noted so that parts of Solihull Borough would be that to accept this counter-proposal contained in three constituencies, each for Coventry and Warwickshire would of which would contain wards from a also affect the pattern of constituencies neighbouring local authority (Birmingham, across the other boroughs in the West Coventry, and Stratford-on-Avon). Midlands county, and in Worcestershire, but they decided that the evidence 3.28 There was widespread opposition received concerning this sub-region was to the initial proposals for Solihull. Solihull so compelling as to fully warrant making Borough Council (BCE-28938) called these changes and the changes required for two constituencies to be formed to other sub-regions. They considered wholly within the borough, with the that it came closer to balancing the criteria Blythe ward being included in the Solihull laid down by Parliament for reviewing constituency, and the Elmdon ward being constituency boundaries than other included in the Meriden constituency. counter-proposals or indeed the initial This counter-proposal was supported proposals for this region. by the Conservative Party (BCE-32257), as part of its regional counter-proposal. 3.25 As part of their counter-proposal, The Liberal Democrat Party (BCE-31732) the Conservative Party (specifically) and the Green Party (BCE-28253) also had suggested that the proposed North suggested this division of Solihull between Warwickshire constituency should be constituencies as part of their regional renamed as North Warwickshire and counter-proposals, as did Aaron Fear Bedworth, to reflect the inclusion of the (BCE-31726). These counter-proposals town in the constituency. Our assistant also united the villages of Knowle and commissioners noted that the town of Dorridge, which were divided by the initial Page 89

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 19 proposals, a move which had brought 3.31 Our assistant commissioners considerable objection. It was argued advised us that there was no need to by many, for example Barry Cox (BCE- split a ward between constituencies in 21393) that ‘Knowle is part of Solihull and Solihull, with the whole ward counter- together, Knowle, Dorridge, and Bentley proposal having widespread support. They Heath are and always will be considered noted that this would move more electors a unit with historical local ties. It is between constituencies, and considered essentially rural with no links to Coventry, that such a move would not constitute West or otherwise.’ the ‘exceptional and compelling reasons’ required to split a ward. Therefore they 3.29 Adrian Bailey (BCE-32166) recommended that the Solihull borough proposed that, because the Elmdon ward of Elmdon should be included in a ward was ‘an integral part of the town’ Meriden constituency, and the Solihull of Solihull, the Solihull borough ward borough ward of Blythe should be included of Bickenhill should be split between in a Solihull constituency. They rejected constituencies, which would allow for a suggestions to change the name of the better match of existing constituencies. Meriden constituency, such as suggested by the Liberal Democrat Party who wanted 3.30 Other counter-proposals that to include reference to Chelmsley Wood affected Solihull were received from within the constituency name, because Jonathan Stansby (BCE-18871), there had only been minimal change to John Chanin (BCE-25109), Oliver the existing constituency. We accept all Raven (BCE‑30045), the Labour their recommendations. Party (BCE‑33146), Mike O’Brien QC (BCE‑31666), and Jim Cunningham MP Herefordshire, Shropshire, (Coventry South) and Geoffrey Robinson Telford and Wrekin, MP (Coventry West) (BCE-22932), all Worcestershire, and the West suggesting different divisions of Solihull Midlands metropolitan county as part of their counter-proposals, which area (less Coventry and Solihull) all included constituencies that crossed the borough boundary. As detailed in the 3.32 Of the 36 existing constituencies Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region in this sub-region, only nine have above, our assistant commissioners electorates that are currently within 5% rejected these counter-proposals because of the electoral quota. Under our initial they accepted that the best way to proposals we proposed to reduce the reflect the rules was to recommend two number of constituencies in this sub- constituencies wholly within the Borough region to 32 and we recommended of Solihull. They noted that this would that three of the existing constituencies affect the pattern of the initial proposals (Birmingham Hodge Hill, North Shropshire, for constituencies in Birmingham, with the and Sutton Coldfield) remain unchanged. Birmingham city ward of Sheldon having to We proposed changes to the other be included in a Birmingham constituency, 33 constituencies, and recommended rather than in a Solihull constituency. one constituency that crossed the

Page 90

20 Boundary Commission for England Shropshire county boundary with Telford to bring the electorate to within the and Wrekin, one constituency that crossed permitted electorate range and this meant the Herefordshire county boundary with that we had to include an additional six Shropshire, one constituency that crossed Shropshire wards in a renamed Bridgnorth, the Herefordshire county boundary with Wellington and The Wrekin constituency. Worcestershire, one constituency that The remaining 11 Shropshire wards were crossed the Warwickshire county boundary included in a cross-county boundary with Worcestershire, and one constituency constituency called Ludlow and Leominster that crossed the Birmingham city boundary with 15 wards from Herefordshire. with Solihull Borough. 3.35 There was support for our proposals 3.33 In the boroughs that formed the in Shropshire, but a number of objections county of West Midlands, the size of the were received as to which Telford and electorate in each ward made it very Wrekin wards should be included in the difficult to form constituencies containing expanded Telford constituency, and to the whole wards only. This was a particular inclusion of the Much Wenlock ward in the problem in the City of Birmingham and proposed Bridgnorth, Wellington and The the Borough of Dudley. We decided, in Wrekin constituency. our initial proposals, that we would not recommend any constituencies in the West 3.36 In Shropshire, the Conservative Midlands which would contain parts of a Party (BCE-32257) suggested including split ward, but that ‘we would welcome the Telford and Wrekin ward of Apley evidence on whether an alternative Castle in the Telford constituency, and the configuration of constituencies could be Telford and Wrekin ward of Donnington formulated that was not based on whole in a renamed The Wrekin constituency. wards’. In response to the consultation we They also proposed the inclusion of the received a number of representations that Shropshire ward of Much Wenlock in the suggested splitting wards in Birmingham, Ludlow and Leominster constituency. The Dudley, and Sandwell. Liberal Democrat Party proposed that the Chirbury and Worthen ward be included in Herefordshire, Shropshire, Telford the Ludlow and Leominster constituency. and Wrekin, and Worcestershire 3.37 Our assistant commissioners noted 3.34 In Shropshire, we decided to that there had been a significant level of make no change to the existing North support for our proposed constituency Shropshire constituency as part of of Telford, and our proposed Bridgnorth, our initial proposals. While we could Wellington and The Wrekin constituency. have made no change to the existing For example, Peter Bradley (BCE-27231), Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency, we who is a former MP for The Wrekin, decided to include the Shropshire ward argued that ‘Transferring the urban areas of Chirbury and Worthen in a renamed of Donnington and Hadley & Leegomery Shrewsbury constituency. We had to into the predominantly urban Telford increase the existing Telford constituency constituency makes obvious sense. The

Page 91

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 21 communities of those two wards have 3.39 In Shropshire, the assistant closer links and more closely shared commissioners considered the characteristics with other parts of Telford Conservative Party counter-proposal to than they do with the rural parts of The include the Much Wenlock ward in the Wrekin and this revision will help create Ludlow and Leominster constituency. They a homogeneous and relatively compact noted that evidence had been received of constituency.’ They also noted the community and commercial links and was evidence from Lucy Allan MP (Telford) also supported by Much Wenlock Town (BCE-39846) suggesting that the support Council (BCE-21016) and, for example, by for the initial proposals had all come from B Revell (BCE-25227) who said that ‘Much one political party and should not be Wenlock is located in the Shropshire Hills given any weight. They rejected Ms Allan’s AONB, and geographically, economically argument and based their conclusion and culturally has greater linkages within on the evidence presented to them and rural South Shropshire, than with the did not consider the alleged political settlements agglomeration of the proposed consequences of any alternatives put new constituency.’ before them. Our assistant commissioners rejected the counter-proposal from the 3.40 In deciding to include the Much Conservative Party for an exchange of Wenlock ward in a Ludlow and Leominster wards between the proposed Telford, constituency, the assistant commissioners and Bridgnorth, Wellington and The noted that this would leave the Broseley Wrekin constituencies noting that there ward – on the west bank of the River was insufficient evidence to support Severn – without a direct road link across such a change. They recommended no the river into the proposed Bridgnorth change to proposed North Shropshire and and The Wrekin constituency. They Shrewsbury constituencies. We agree. considered that this was not such an inconvenience for the electors of Broseley 3.38 The assistant commissioners noted as to mean that the Much Wenlock ward the objections to the name of the proposed should not be transferred, or that the Bridgnorth, Wellington and The Wrekin Broseley ward should be included in a constituency. They accepted the argument Ludlow and Leominster constituency, that the town of Wellington had historical especially as to do so would lead to connections to the name The Wrekin significant reconfigurations in Shropshire and did not need to be included in the that were not justified. Therefore, they constituency. They did not agree that The recommended we include Much Wenlock Wrekin was a correct description for the in the Ludlow and Leominster constituency, whole of the proposed constituency, as the and we agree. existing The Wrekin constituency had been enlarged to include the town of Bridgnorth. 3.41 They noted the evidence relating to They recommended that the constituency whether the Chirbury and Worthen ward should be named Bridgnorth and The should be included in the Shrewsbury, or Wrekin. We agree. the Ludlow and Leominster constituency. They considered that there were strong enough links between Chirbury, Worthen Page 92

22 Boundary Commission for England and the town of Shrewsbury along suggested changes to the constituencies the A488 to justify its inclusion in the in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Shrewsbury constituency, and that to Worcestershire, including creating a include it in the Ludlow and Leominster Ludlow and Stourport constituency, and constituency would make an already gave evidence (BCE-32578) on day one of geographically large constituency even the Birmingham public hearing. larger. We agree. 3.44 There was support for the inclusion 3.42 In Herefordshire, the existing of Bromyard in the Malvern and Ledbury Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency, with this being part of constituency needed to be expanded and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat now contains 31 Herefordshire wards. Parties’ counter-proposals. It was argued The remaining seven Herefordshire by Philip Dunne MP (Ludlow) (BCE-29597) wards were included in a cross-county that Bromyard looked more towards boundary constituency called Malvern Tenbury Wells than to Leominster. The and Ledbury, with all of Malvern Hills assistant commissioners advised us that district and the Ombersley ward from the Liberal Democrat counter-proposal Wychavon district. There was support to move the three wards of Bromyard for the inclusion of the Backbury and Bringsty, Bromyard West, and Hampton Hagley wards in the Hereford and South to the Malvern and Ledbury constituency Herefordshire constituency. There were achieved the best overall solution for objections to the inclusion of the Old the county. Gore ward in the proposed Malvern and Ledbury constituency, and to the 3.45 In Herefordshire, our assistant inclusion of Bromyard in the Ludlow and commissioners noted the broad support Leominster constituency. for our initial proposals for the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. 3.43 In Herefordshire, the Conservative For example, Bartestree with Lugwardine Party suggested including the Credenhill Parish Council (BCE-36820) said that it ward in the Ludlow and Leominster was ‘sensible to move the Hagley Ward constituency, and the Bromyard Bringsty from the existing North Herefordshire to and Bromyard West wards in the Malvern the new Hereford and South Herefordshire and Ledbury constituency. The Liberal Constituency as it is only three or four Democrat Party suggested that the miles from Hereford City’. They also Bromyard Bringsty, Bromyard West, suggested that the Old Gore ward should and Hampton wards be included in the be included in the Hereford and South Malvern and Ledbury constituency. A Herefordshire constituency. This was number of localised counter-proposals echoed by Robert Palgrave (BCE-35141) were also received. Bill Wiggin MP (North who said ‘I live in Old Gore ward, which Herefordshire) (BCE-25933) suggested is currently in the North Herefordshire three alternatives affecting our initial Westminster constituency – although proposals that included the existing about 8 miles south of Hereford. It is North Herefordshire constituency. The in the wrong constituency already. The West Midlands Green Party (BCE-28253) proposal to move us into the Ledbury and Page 93

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 23 Malvern constituency makes it even worse.’ 3.48 In Worcestershire, we proposed Anna‑Maria Coda (BCE-22167), on behalf that the Wychavon district wards of of the Hereford and South Herefordshire Drakes Broughton, and Norton and Constituency Labour Party, noted that ‘we Whittington be included in the Worcester regret that ‘Old Gore’ could not have been constituency. We also proposed that the accommodated within our new boundaries Wychavon district ward of Hartlebury be as we feel its residents will have little included in the Wyre Forest constituency, connection with the new area as they even though that constituency could regard Ross as their local town.’ otherwise be left unchanged. We included eight Bromsgrove district wards in an 3.46 The assistant commissioners expanded Redditch constituency, and noted that to include the Old Gore ward combined the towns of Bromsgrove in our proposed Hereford and South and Droitwich Spa in a Bromsgrove and Herefordshire constituency would result Droitwich constituency. The remaining in the electorate of that constituency Worcestershire wards were included in falling outside the permitted electorate a cross-county boundary Evesham and range, so one of the wards in the South Warwickshire constituency with proposed constituency would have to wards from Stratford‑on‑Avon district. be moved to another constituency. They accepted that the Old Gore ward would 3.49 While there was some support have close links with the town of Ross- for the constituencies in the north of on‑Wye, but they noted that they were Worcestershire, there was opposition to not currently in the same constituency, our initial proposals for a cross-county with the River Wye as the constituency boundary constituency with Warwickshire, boundary. They concluded that to make and the division of Wychavon district further changes to accommodate the among five constituencies, including from Old Gore ward in the Hereford and South the Mid Worcester Liberal Democrats Herefordshire constituency was not (BCE-30038) and residents. There were justified, and we agree. a number of different suggestions as to which neighbouring wards should be 3.47 The assistant commissioners noted added to the Worcester constituency. As that there had been objections to the a result of the decisions made in Coventry inclusion of wards from Herefordshire in and Warwickshire (see above), we noted cross-county boundary constituencies that it was inevitable that changes with either Shropshire or Worcestershire. would have to be made to our proposed However, they considered that no one constituencies in Worcestershire. had put forward a viable alternative that would better reflect the rules and ties as 3.50 In Worcestershire, the Conservative expressed in the evidence across the Party suggested including the Malvern sub‑region as a whole. We agree. Hills district wards of Kempsey and Ripple in the Worcester constituency, and made changes consequent upon not crossing the Warwickshire and Worcestershire county boundary. Page 94

24 Boundary Commission for England 3.51 The Liberal Democrat Party 3.54 There were many objections to suggested that the Wychavon district the inclusion of the Drakes Broughton wards of Lovett and North Claines, ward in the Worcester constituency. Pat and Ombersley be included in the Davis (BCE-20652) said ‘As a large, rural Worcester constituency. area which looks to the local market town of Pershore for its services, Drakes 3.52 In Worcestershire, given the Broughton Ward has little affinity with changes to the initial proposals so as not Worcester. Most people living in the to recommend a constituency that crossed Drakes Broughton Ward would say they the Warwickshire and Worcestershire live in or near Pershore.’ Sharon Stirling county boundary (see the section on (BCE-39874) pointed out that these two Coventry and Warwickshire above), the wards formed part of the Upton Snodsbury assistant commissioners looked at the electoral division on Worcestershire alternatives as to which wards might County Council and should be in the be added to the existing Worcester same constituency. In her evidence on constituency to bring the electorate to day one of the Royal Leamington Spa within the electoral range. The Labour public hearing (BCE‑32338), she objected Party suggested that only the Wychavon to both wards being included in the district ward of Norton and Whittington Worcester constituency. needed to be included. Aaron Fear (BCE-31726) suggested the Malvern Hills 3.55 There was support for the inclusion district wards of Broadheath and Hallow of the Norton and Whittington ward in should be included. the Worcester constituency. As Robert Campbell (BCE-33635) said ‘It makes 3.53 In the second consultation, the sense to add Norton and Whittington. Labour Party (BCE-41029) said about This Ward is within easy reach of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Worcester City Centre. People living in counter-proposals that ‘Both of these this Ward use Worcester’s schools, NHS proposals contain weaknesses which we services, leisure, sport and shopping would argue make them less acceptable facilities and consider themselves to live in these respects than the Initial Proposals. in Worcester, even though they lie just In particular their Worcester constituencies outside the city council’s administrative are both unsatisfactory. The Lib Dem boundary. The Norton and Whittington proposal would include two wards to Ward has a number of recently built the north of the city which look towards housing estates, with more planned, that Droitwich as their local centre and would constitute urban extensions to Worcester extend some miles from the urban area. and were designed largely to meet The Conservative counter proposal would Worcester’s housing needs. Norton and include the Malvern Hills district wards Whittington Ward is, to all extents and of Kempsey and Ripple, which would purposes, in Worcester.’ form a long thin “tail” to the constituency extending to the southern edge of the county.’

Page 95

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 25 3.56 Our assistant commissioners orphan ward on the east bank of the River considered that by including only the Severn, while the rest of the proposed Norton and Whittington ward in the Malvern and Ledbury constituency is Worcester constituency, it would be a on the west bank. While there is a road better reflection of the rules and help connection via the A4133 across the River minimise change in Worcestershire. Severn, the assistant commissioners They accepted that this would result in considered that the Ombersley ward the Norton and Whittington ward being should be in the same constituency an ‘orphan ward’5 in the Worcester as the town of Droitwich Spa. They constituency, but considered that this was noted the evidence of Ombersley and not an overwhelming objection. We agree Doverdale Parish Council (BCE‑24589) that with their conclusion. ‘Historically, the Parish had developed an affinity with Droitwich. This is regarded as 3.57 They noted that this change its ‘administrative centre’. Furthermore, allowed for the Drakes Broughton ward many services (including postal services to be included in a renamed Evesham and school placements arrangements) constituency, which would not include any have been developed (and continue to Warwickshire wards, thereby recognising operate) on this basis. This relationship the ward’s ties with the towns of Evesham is well understood and the Parish and Pershore. To ensure that the Council feels that it is imperative that electorate of the Evesham constituency fell this relationship is preserved. Ombersley within the permitted electorate range, the and Doverdale will be the only Parish assistant commissioners recommended within Wychavon District Council to be we adopt part of the Liberal Democrats’ moved into the new Malvern and Ledbury counter‑proposal, by including the five constituency. As a consequence, to Malvern Hills district wards of Kempsey, effectively represent the interests of the Longdon, Morton, Ripple, and Upton and Parish, the serving Member of Parliament Hanley in the Evesham constituency. They would be required to develop a day to noted that this would divide the Malvern day working relationship with the District Hills district between constituencies, Council for the benefit of only one Parish. but they also noted that these wards are The responsibilities of MPs are significant currently in the same existing constituency and the Parish Council believes that it as the town of Pershore, so that these ties would be unreasonable to expect an MP would be respected. We agree. to do so. Whilst it is sure any serving MP would endeavour to represent the 3.58 The changes recommended above interests of the Parish, it believes that this to the Malvern and Ledbury constituency is not realistic and it would become the allowed the assistant commissioners to ‘poor relations’ of the new Constituency. recommend that the Wychavon district Historically, electoral divisions (whether ward of Ombersley be included in the Parish, District, County or Parliamentary) Bromsgrove and Droitwich constituency. have always taken account of natural They noted that the Ombersley ward is an boundaries. In Ombersley and Doverdale’s

5 ‘Orphan ward’ refers to a clear minority of wards (usually just one ward) from one local authority, in a constituency where the overwhelming majority of wards are from another local authority. Page 96

26 Boundary Commission for England case the River Severn has always formed 3.61 By including the Hartlebury and one of these natural boundaries. This is Ombersley wards in the Bromsgrove and well understood and the proposal to move Droitwich constituency, the assistant the Parish to the other side of the River commissioners noted that the electorate would simply create confusion.’ of that constituency would fall outside the permitted electorate range. They noted 3.59 The assistant commissioners also that the Labour Party had suggested that noted that there had been objections to the two Bromsgrove district wards of the inclusion of the Wychavon district Rubery North and Rubery South should ward of Hartlebury as an orphan ward in be included in a Birmingham Northfield our proposed Wyre Forest constituency. constituency. They visited the area to For example, David Mills (BCE-21087) said see the links between Rubery and the ‘Hartlebury is a rural ward as opposed Birmingham city ward of Longbridge, to Wyre Forest which is mainly an urban which borders Rubery. They noted constituency. The ward has a greater that, while there was some difference affinity with the rural area to the south – in the housing stock between the two Ombersley. The Church parish is linked areas, there was a good road link via to Ombersley and Doverdale ... The the A38 through to the Longbridge and Hartlebury Parish Plan links more with the Northfield wards. They considered that it Wychavon councils. There is no interaction would be reasonable to include the two with Wyre Forest at present.’ Rubery wards in a Birmingham Northfield constituency (see later in this chapter), 3.60 There was some support for and we agree. Hartlebury’s inclusion in the Wyre Forest constituency, such as from Ian Miller 3.62 The assistant commissioners (BCE-26005) on behalf of Wyre Forest recommended to us to change the Council. However, having considered the proposed Redditch constituency by evidence, the assistant commissioners including the Bromsgrove district recommended that Hartlebury ward ward of Tardebigge in the Bromsgrove should be included in the Bromsgrove and and Droitwich constituency and the Droitwich constituency. They considered Bromsgrove district ward of Cofton in the this would recognise the close ties Redditch constituency. Bentley Pauncefoot between the Hartlebury and Ombersley Parish Council (BCE-24899) objected to wards. It will also revert Wyre Forest to the inclusion of the Tardebigge ward in a constituency that is coteriminous with a Redditch constituency and suggested the Wyre Forest District and, therefore, be that the Cofton ward should be swapped unchanged from the existing constituency. with the Tardebigge ward. They said ‘An It will also mean that Wychavon district alternative and perhaps more radical would only be divided between three of the approach would be to look at the north recommended constituencies, as opposed of the present Bromsgrove constituency to five in the initial proposals. We agree where Cofton Hackett has an electorate with their recommendation. of 2,142. Separated from Bromsgrove

Page 97

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 27 by the Lickey Hills and closely linked which we currently have, will understand to Birmingham’s southern suburbs, the need to protect that green field status employment opportunities and services, it and not over develop the local area. might seem to be more logical to include We need a local MP to Alvechurch to it within a Birmingham constituency. understand the needs of the local small Its exclusion from the Bromsgrove and growing community ... It is my belief that a Droitwich constituency could therefore Redditch MP, with Redditch being a new also be considered as an opportunity to town, will not understand the immediate counterbalance Tardebigge’s inclusion needs of the rural community here in within the new constituency.’ They added Alvechurch. Therefore I would prefer my that ‘The Parish Council stresses that MP constituency to remain as it is, as the residents which it represents do not Bromsgrove.’ The assistant commissioners see themselves as being closely linked noted that the electorate of the existing to Redditch and wish therefore to retain Redditch constituency was some way their historic parliamentary links with outside the permitted electorate range Bromsgrove.’ We accept our assistant and that wards from a neighbouring local commissioners recommendations. authority needed to be added. They agreed with our initial proposal to include 3.63 The assistant commissioners wards from Bromsgrove district in the rejected the counter-proposal from the Redditch constituency and recommended Labour Party to retain the Wychavon we not make any further changes to that district ward of Inkberrow in the Redditch constituency. We agree. constituency, as they considered that it was not necessary to divide Wychavon West Midlands metropolitan county district into more than three constituencies. (less Coventry and Solihull) They also rejected the Conservative Party’s suggestion that the Redditch constituency 3.65 In the West Midlands county, we had be renamed as North Worcestershire, to create a number of constituencies that as they considered this not to be crossed borough boundaries. We did not geographically accurate. We agree. recommend a constituency that contained parts of three West Midlands boroughs. 3.64 Our assistant commissioners noted Of the 20 constituencies wholly in the five that there had been a number of objections boroughs, 11 contained part of only one from Alvechurch to its inclusion in the borough and nine contained parts of two Redditch constituency. For example, Lorna boroughs, and one Birmingham ward was Thomas (BCE-33859) said ‘I am presently included in a Solihull constituency. within the Bromsgrove constituency and it is proposed it will soon become 3.66 There was some support for Redditch. I have significant concerns parts of the initial proposals, with with this. Alvechurch is considered a representations approving of the shape village, surrounded at present with green of the proposed constituencies in belt land. There has been significant Birmingham, which contained parts of residential development within the village the inner city and the outer suburbs. In already. A local MP in a rural district, particular, the boundaries of the three Page 98

28 Boundary Commission for England proposed Wolverhampton constituencies attached to Halesowen and a distinct part were supported, as were the proposed of it – as are all the other parts of the town. Aldridge, Brownhills and Bloxwich, and Halesowen has a documented history Walsall Central constituencies. stretching back to the Domesday Book, with Hayley Green, Lutley, Hawne, etc, 3.67 However, there was strong being traditional “hundreds” associated opposition to the proposed Birmingham with the town. It also makes no sense to Selly Oak and Halesowen constituency, associate other parts of the town with new with respondents objecting to the inclusion suburbs of Birmingham.’ of wards from Birmingham and Dudley in the same constituency. Lawrence Eastwell 3.69 There were objections to the (BCE-14652) said ‘I am a student who inclusion of the Birmingham city ward lives in this constituency in term time of Tyburn in the Birmingham Ladywood and must say that it makes absolutely no constituency, thereby crossing the M6, sense whatsoever!! Halesowen and Selly which was considered a barrier between Oak are completely different! ... Perhaps the two parts of the constituency, and the constituencies should be ‘rounder’ which also stretched across the width and focused on grouping common areas of the city and into the neighbouring rather than long thin stretches across Borough of Sandwell. There was some Birmingham.’ Sally Vernon (BCE-16080) support for, but more objection to, the said ‘I live in Halesowen, which is in inclusion of the Walsall borough ward of Dudley and part of the Black Country. I’m Pheasey Park Farm in the Birmingham concerned that the new boundaries show Erdington constituency. A joint submission Halesowen as being in the same area as from Pheasey Park Farm Councillors parts of Birmingham. Birmingham and the (BCE‑33204) argued the ward should not Black Country are very different and the be moved into a city constituency because people are very distinct. Local rivalries run of its parochial, rural feel. This submission deep so it seems illogical to try to combine was supported by a 699-signature the two. It would make far more sense to campaign. Several respondents objected include Halesowen with either other Dudley to our policy of not splitting wards in this areas or with parts of Sandwell, which is sub-region and suggested that it would also in the Black Country.’ result in constituencies that better reflected local ties if wards were split. 3.68 There were objections to the division of the town of Halesowen between 3.70 As discussed previously in this constituencies, with respondents saying chapter, the Labour Party (BCE-33146) that the Dudley ward of Hayley Green and counter ‑proposal suggested including Cradley South should not be included in the Bromsgrove district wards of Rubery the Stourbridge constituency. Christopher North and Rubery South in the proposed Woodall (BCE-14627) said ‘The proposal Birmingham Northfield constituency. to incorporate the Hayley Green section They strongly supported the policy of not of Halesowen into Stourbridge makes splitting wards. no sense whatsoever. Hayley Green is

Page 99

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 29 3.71 The Conservative Party’s (BCE‑35483) in the second consultation, (BCE‑32257) counter-proposal suggested who suggested splitting one Birmingham retaining the Tyburn ward in the ward between constituencies. Birmingham Erdington constituency, with the Stockland Green ward included in the 3.74 John Bryant (BCE-28361) suggested Birmingham Perry Barr constituency, and a counter-proposal that did not split wards the Aston ward included in the Birmingham in the West Midlands, but which included Ladywood constituency. As part of other the Birmingham city ward of Hall Green in changes in the West Midlands boroughs, a Solihull constituency. Oliver Raven (BCE- they suggested splitting two wards in 39493 and BCE-30045) also suggested a Birmingham (Brandwood and Springfield) counter-proposal that did not split wards and one ward in Dudley (Brierley Hill). in the West Midlands, but in doing so he created constituencies that crossed the 3.72 The Liberal Democrat Party’s (BCE- Staffordshire and West Midlands county 31732) counter-proposal suggested that boundary, and the Worcestershire and Birmingham should contain nine whole West Midlands county boundary. He constituencies, with five wards split also disregarded the existing pattern between constituencies (Acocks Green, of constituencies in the West Midlands Kings Norton, Nechells, Oscott, and Shard in order to create constituencies with End). They also suggested splitting the electorates within the electoral range. Walsall borough ward of Aldridge Central and South between constituencies as part 3.75 A number of localised counter- of a different pattern of constituencies in proposals were also received. Sandwell the four Black Country boroughs. One Borough Council (BCE-21464) suggested of their proposed constituencies would changes to our proposed constituencies in contain parts of three boroughs (Sandwell, Sandwell. James Strawbridge (BCE-18197) Walsall, and Wolverhampton). suggested some minor changes in the West Midlands. 3.73 Other regional counter-proposals were received from Aaron Fear (BCE- 3.76 Our assistant commissioners 31726), who suggested splitting noted that changes had to be made to three Birmingham wards between the initial proposals in Birmingham as a constituencies; Adrian Bailey (BCE-32166), result of not including the Birmingham who suggested splitting five Birmingham, city ward of Sheldon in a predominantly two Dudley, four Sandwell, and one Solihull constituency, and of including Walsall ward between constituencies; the Worcestershire wards of Rubery Michael Barge (BCE-27095), who North and Rubery South in a Birmingham suggested splitting one Dudley ward constituency, both discussed previously between constituencies; John Chanin in this report. They also noted in particular (BCE‑25255 and BCE-25109), who that, as the Sheldon ward had an suggested splitting five Birmingham wards electorate of 15,778, it would not be a between constituencies; and Jonathan simple task to re-configure the Birmingham Stansby (BCE-18871 and BCE-18173), and constituencies to take account of this one ward. Page 100

30 Boundary Commission for England 3.77 Having reviewed our initial change to be made across the south proposals, all the counter-proposals and east of the City of Birmingham. They and suggestions for this sub-region, our considered that it would be possible to assistant commissioners considered recommend a pattern of constituencies that there was no one counter-proposal across Birmingham that did not split any that should be adopted in its entirety. ward between constituencies, and also As previously outlined, they decided to mean that fewer Birmingham wards would recommend elements of some of the be part of a cross-borough boundary counter-proposals in Herefordshire, constituency. They noted that it was Shropshire and Worcestershire. However, possible to add the Selly Oak ward to they decided to recommend an alternative the existing Birmingham Edgbaston configuration that did not split wards in constituency, and that this would unite Birmingham, but did split one ward in student areas within the Edgbaston and Dudley (Brierley Hill) and two wards in Selly Oak wards in one constituency. Such Sandwell (Greets Green and Lyng, and a constituency had been proposed by St. Pauls), that was based more closely John Bryant (BCE-28361) as part of his on the existing constituencies than the counter-proposal. Ben Pugh (BCE-33729) initial proposals had been. The assistant noted the large student population in the commissioners considered splitting Selly Oak ward, as did Steve McCabe MP alternative wards. They also visited the (Birmingham Selly Oak) (BCE-26297). The wards to be split and considered various assistant commissioners suggested that ways of splitting them, but concluded they the constituency be named Birmingham had found the best solution and met the Edgbaston and Selly Oak to reflect exceptional and compelling circumstances both historical constituency names. To required to split wards and fulfil legal compensate for the loss of the Selly Oak obligations. They advised us that their ward, they decided to add the ward of recommendations provided a much better Moseley and Kings Heath to a renamed fit to the existing constituencies, and local Birmingham Brandwood constituency. authority areas, while reflecting as much By retaining the whole of the Brandwood as possible the evidence about local ties and Billesley wards in one constituency, received during the consultation periods, they noted that this would respect the ties thereby providing a better reflection of between these two wards. Councillor Barry the statutory factors overall. We accept Henley (BCE-20502) said ‘I live in Billesley their recommendations. ward and as a Councillor I represent Brandwood ward so I know this area very 3.78 In Birmingham, the addition of well. I can cross the entire constituency the two Rubery wards to the existing on foot or bike by the Worcester and Birmingham Northfield constituency Birmingham Canal, the Stratford on Avon (discussed previously in this report) would Canal and the River Cole valley. Much of result in a constituency with an electorate the area has historic links into the Kings within the permitted electorate range. Norton parish and the borough which was The assistant commissioners noted that a late addition to Birmingham in 1911.’ it would also allow for relatively little We accept their recommendations.

Page 101

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 31 3.79 To replace the Moseley and Kings an electorate within the electoral range and Heath ward in the existing Birmingham was left unchanged in the initial proposals. Hall Green constituency, the assistant By including the Stechford and North commissioners proposed including the Yardley ward in the Birmingham Hodge Hill Acocks Green ward. They noted that constituency and the Bordesley Green and the existing Birmingham Hall Green Nechells wards in the Birmingham Yardley constituency had an electorate within constituency, two constituencies with the electoral range, and that there had electorates within the permitted electorate been support for its retention unchanged. range could be created. The assistant Catherine Hamburger (BCE-29133) said commissioners noted that this would divide ‘I, and my husband, of the same address, the Yardley area between constituencies, wholeheartedly support the submission but considered that this was acceptable to made by Moseley Forum regarding the achieve a better result across Birmingham proposed constituency boundary changes as a whole. We agree. for Birmingham Hall Green Constituency. As long standing residents of Moseley, we 3.81 There was support for our proposal feel that the proposed boundary changes for the Sutton Coldfield constituency, are at the very least extremely impractical.’ which was unchanged from the existing However, the assistant commissioners constituency. However, Andrew Mitchell noted that this had not been possible when MP (Sutton Coldfield) (BCE-31629 and balancing the evidence across the whole BCE-34902) requested that the name of the region, but they considered that this of the constituency should be Royal was an acceptable alternative given the Sutton Coldfield. He argued that as the evidence of the ties between the Acocks constituency boundary was coterminous Green and Hall Green wards. Jess Phillips with the Sutton Coldfield Town Council, MP (Birmingham Yardley) (BCE-32637) which claims historical ‘Royal’ status, it said on day one of the Birmingham public should be reflected in the name of the hearing ‘there are already very strong constituency. The changing of the name and existing links between certainly the of the constituency to Royal Sutton Acocks Green ward of that constituency Coldfield was rejected by the assistant and Hall Green, so, for example, the Hall commissioners. They noted that no other Green Little Theatre is in Acocks Green. constituency in the United Kingdom has The schools, so Lakey Lane School, which a Royal prefix and did not consider the if you were to ask anybody who lived in arguments put forward in favour of such that area they would say it was in Hall a move justified setting such a precedent. Green although it falls into the Acocks We agree. Green boundary.’ 3.82 The assistant commissioners noted 3.80 With the Birmingham city ward of the objections to the inclusion of the Sheldon not being included in a Solihull Tyburn ward in our proposed Birmingham constituency, changes had to be made to Ladywood constituency, with objectors the existing Birmingham Hodge Hill and claiming Tyburn’s ties were with the Birmingham Yardley constituencies. The Birmingham Erdington constituency. David Birmingham Hodge Hill constituency has Owen (BCE-16605) said ‘Tyburn and Castle Page 102

32 Boundary Commission for England Vale more specifically have had long lasting doctors, went to the same local shops but ties with Erdington and many community was in a different constituency – something groups in North Birmingham as a result.’ your proposals thankfully change.’ They also noted that the Conservative However, the assistant commissioners Party had suggested that the Stockland were aware that to include the Erdington, Green ward should be excluded from Kingstanding, Oscott, Stockland Green, the Birmingham Erdington constituency, and Tyburn wards in a constituency suggesting that it had closer links with the would result in an electorate outside Perry Barr ward than with the Erdington the permitted electorate range. Some ward. The assistant commissioners counter-proposals had suggested that the noted that there was strong support for electoral range be achieved by splitting retaining the Stockland Green ward in the Oscott ward between constituencies. the Birmingham Erdington constituency. The assistant commissioners rejected Jack Dromey MP (Birmingham Erdington) this alternative and decided to include (BCE-27091) said ‘Stockland Green ward the Perry Barr ward instead of the Oscott borders Erdington High Street in Erdington ward, with the constituency being named ward, this means that many residents rely Birmingham Erdington and Perry Barr, to on the local shops and would naturally reflect both historical constituency names. look to Erdington High Street as their This constituency had been proposed by local shopping district. Stockland Green John Bryant (BCE-28361) in his counter- ward does not have a local library, instead proposal. They noted that this would not residents tend to use either the Erdington be an ideally shaped constituency, but library in Erdington ward or the Perry considered that there were adequate Common library in Kingstanding ward.’ communication links between the Witton The assistant commissioners considered part of the Perry Barr ward and the that both the Stockland Green and Tyburn Stockland Green ward. wards should be part of a Birmingham Erdington constituency to recognise 3.84 By adding the Aston, and the close ties both wards had with that Lozells and East Handsworth wards constituency. We agree. to the Ladywood and Soho wards in a Birmingham Ladywood constituency, 3.83 They noted the evidence presented the assistant commissioners noted that in support of the inclusion of the Oscott the electorate would be outside the ward in the Birmingham Erdington permitted electorate range. They therefore constituency, to recognise the close links recommended we include the Sandwell between the Oscott and Kingstanding borough ward of Soho and Victoria in wards. Alexander Hall (BCE-26506) said the Birmingham Ladywood constituency, ‘Kingstanding has been linked for many as it was in the initial proposals for that years with Erdington and I often shop constituency, and was generally supported and go out there. The same is true of the by respondents. Lord Rooker (BCE-19828) Oscott area where until very recently my said ‘Adding Soho and Victoria wards from brother lived. In fact he lived literally 100 Sandwell makes sense as the community yards from my house, used the same straddles the boundary here.’ We agree.

Page 103

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 33 3.85 The assistant commissioners ward in a Walsall and Oscott constituency, noted that the four wards of the existing which would also mean that the Walsall Birmingham Perry Barr constituency would borough ward of Pheasey Park Farm would be included in four separate constituencies be included in a predominantly Walsall as part of the alternative they constituency, rather than a predominantly recommended. They considered whether it Birmingham constituency. The links would be possible to retain the Birmingham between the wards of Oscott and Pheasey Perry Barr constituency as suggested Park Farm were accepted by many in the initial proposals, given that there respondents, for example by Alexander had been support for it. Lord Rooker Hall (BCE‑26506), and Louise Alden (BCE- (BCE‑19828) said ‘I was a born and grew 23958) who said ‘Firstly I support the up in the constituency. It changed in 2010 addition of Oscott and Pheasey Park Farm. in a modest way. In particular it is right to They naturally tie into the wider Erdington add the Newton Ward of Sandwell. It is and Kingstanding area and so it makes integral to Perry Barr Ward from a person, sense for them to be joined in. They share shopping and transport view. Most people many common communities and facilities do not realise it is another local authority and postcodes. Indeed you can get on a area. It makes a good constituency and I bus in Pheasey Farm Park and go through am pleased the name Perry Barr has been Oscott, Kingstanding, Erdington and end retained.’ However, retaining a Birmingham up at Castle Vale.’ There was also evidence Perry Barr constituency in this form from the three ward councillors in Pheasey alongside the pattern of constituencies Park Farm (BCE-33204) that the ward agreed elsewhere in Birmingham would should be part of a Walsall constituency. result in the Birmingham city ward of Ladywood, which contains much of the 3.87 The other ward was Handsworth Birmingham city centre, being included Wood, which would be included in a in a predominantly Sandwell-based West Bromwich constituency with wards constituency. They, therefore, rejected this from Sandwell Borough. Our assistant option, and we agree. commissioners noted that this pattern of constituencies had not been proposed 3.86 Our assistant commissioners in any counter-proposal, but they had only two Birmingham wards that considered that each of the alternative had not been allocated to a Birmingham counter‑proposals had weaknesses, constituency. They noted that there had either in terms of splitting more wards been support for the inclusion of the than was considered ideal, or of breaking Oscott ward in the same constituency the established local and community ties. as the Kingstanding ward. John Turner They also noted that their recommended (BCE‑32275) on day one at the Royal constituencies would be a significant Leamington Spa public hearing gave improvement on the initial proposals in detailed evidence of the close links terms of matching the existing pattern of between the Kingstanding and Oscott constituencies. No constituency would wards. However, they considered that be formed that linked wards from the there was sufficient evidence to justify their City of Birmingham and the Borough recommending inclusion of the Oscott of Dudley, thereby acknowledging the Page 104

34 Boundary Commission for England poor communication links across the eastern Wolverhampton and even the city M5, which forms the boundary between centre. The name is therefore completely the two authorities. We agree with these misleading and does not reflect a large recommendations in respect of the wards part of the area it covers. How can the of Oscott and Handsworth Wood. constituency covering Wolverhampton city centre not include the city’s name?’ Our 3.88 In the four Black Country assistant commissioners agreed with this boroughs of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, argument and recommended we adopt this and Wolverhampton, the assistant revised name. We agree. commissioners considered how best to reconcile the evidence submitted with 3.90 In Walsall, the assistant trying to create 11 constituencies, all commissioners noted the support for our with electorates within the permitted initial proposals for the Aldridge, Brownhills electorate range. In Wolverhampton, they and Bloxwich, and Walsall Central noted that there had been a significant constituencies. For example, Valerie level of support for the three proposed Vaz MP (Walsall South) (BCE‑33070) constituencies (Wednesfield and Willenhall, gave evidence at the Birmingham public Wolverhampton South and Coseley, and hearing in support of the Walsall Central Wolverhampton West) and they have constituency. However, the assistant supported the proposed boundaries of commissioners noted that the Birmingham these constituencies. ward of Oscott and the Walsall borough ward of Pheasey Park Farm needed to be 3.89 Ian Morton (BCE‑14492) said ‘My included in a Walsall constituency. They current constituency is Wolverhampton decided not to change our proposals for South East. Having looked at the proposal the Aldridge, Brownhills and Bloxwich for the new Wolverhampton South & constituency, and to include the Oscott Coseley constituency I am happy to and Pheasey Park Farm wards in a Walsall support the proposed boundary changes.’ and Oscott constituency. They decided The assistant commissioners decided that the Walsall borough wards of Bentley that there was no need to change the and Darlaston North, Darlaston South, boundaries of these constituencies, and Pleck would have to be included but they did note the objections to the in a constituency with wards from name of the proposed Wednesfield and Sandwell Borough. Willenhall constituency. It was argued that as this constituency would contain 3.91 In Dudley, the assistant the St. Peter’s ward which included commissioners noted that the initially Wolverhampton city centre, the name proposed Stourbridge constituency should be changed to Wolverhampton was the only way that a constituency East and Willenhall, so that all three with an electorate within the permitted constituencies containing wards from electorate range. could be created, Wolverhampton included Wolverhampton in without dividing the town of Stourbridge the name. David Bennett (BCE-14461) said between constituencies. They noted ‘The proposed Wednesfield and Willenhall that by including the Hayley Green and constituency covers large areas of Cradley South ward in the Stourbridge Page 105

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 35 constituency, the town of Halesowen 3.94 The remaining Dudley ward of St. would be divided between constituencies. Thomas’s would be included in a Warley They also noted the counter-proposed constituency with the Sandwell borough Stourbridge constituency suggested by wards of Abbey, Bristnall, Langley, Old the Conservative Party (BCE-32257) was Warley, Oldbury, Smethwick, and Tividale. for the existing constituency, plus part of In order to ensure that the electorate was the split Brierley Hill ward. Our assistant within the permitted electorate range, commissioners visited this ward and noted the assistant commissioners decided that the proposed ward split was clear, to split the St. Pauls ward between using the railway line where it was a polling constituencies using a railway line as the district boundary. They considered that proposed boundary where it is the polling this was a satisfactory proposal and have district boundary. They noted that this recommended it. would ensure that the Hawthorns football ground would be in a West Bromwich 3.92 This would allow the four wards constituency. They visited the ward and that comprised Halesowen town to be considered that this was a sensible division included in a Halesowen and Rowley Regis of the ward between constituencies. constituency, which would be the existing constituency plus the Dudley borough 3.95 The existing West Bromwich East ward of Netherton, Woodside and St. constituency would be expanded to include Andrews. Brendan Clegg (BCE‑34364) the Birmingham city ward of Handsworth said ‘I think it’s disgraceful that a place Wood and that part of the St. Pauls ward with an identity as strong as Rowley Regis not included in the recommended Warley is being effectively wiped off the map. constituency. In order to recommend all There are long standing community ties constituencies with an electorate within the between Halesowen & Rowley Regis – permitted electorate range, the assistant neither of which have anything to do with commissioners also proposed splitting the Selly Oak. We are the Black Country not Greets Green and Lyng ward, with part of a Birmingham suburb ... Please keep the ward remaining in a West Bromwich Halesowen & Rowley Regis.’ constituency. This would recognise that there are ties between the Greets Green 3.93 With three Dudley wards being and Lyng ward and West Bromwich, as included in the initial proposals for the stated by Salah Saeed (BCE-18617). Our Wolverhampton South and Coseley assistant commissioners visited this ward, constituency, the assistant commissioners and while they considered this split to be recommended that seven Dudley wards not as clear-cut as the other ward splits, of Brockmoor and Pensnett, Castle and were content that this was a satisfactory Priory, Gornal, Kingswinford North and Wall solution. They noted in particular that a Heath, Kingswinford South, St. James’s, number of West Bromwich’s municipal and and Wordsley form a constituency to be community buildings, such as the police named Dudley, which also included the station and leisure centre, would remain other part of the split Brierley Hill ward. in the West Bromwich constituency by splitting this ward.

Page 106

36 Boundary Commission for England 3.96 The assistant commissioners 3.100 We noted that we had to make recommended that the rest of the Greets changes to the existing Lichfield and Green and Lyng ward would be included Tamworth constituencies to realign in a Darlaston and Tipton constituency, ward and constituency boundaries, with the Sandwell borough wards of following changes to ward boundaries Great Bridge, Princes End, Tipton Green, in Lichfield. We noted that in both of the Wednesbury North, and Wednesbury two currently split wards of Hammerwich South, and the Walsall borough wards of with Wall, and Whittington & Streethay, Bentley and Darlaston North, Darlaston the majority of the electorate was in the South, and Pleck. existing Lichfield constituency. Therefore, we had to include one ward wholly in 3.97 Our assistant commissioners the Lichfield constituency and one ward noted that this recommended division of wholly in the Tamworth constituency, the four Black Country boroughs would noting that whichever was put in the be more closely based on the existing Tamworth constituency would be likely pattern of constituencies. They considered to break ties. We decided to include that splitting three wards (one in Dudley the Whittington & Streethay ward in the and two in Sandwell) would allow for Tamworth constituency as this would make a sensible pattern of constituencies to for a better boundary between the two be adopted across this sub-region as a constituencies. We also decided to include whole and therefore meet with our policy the Stafford borough ward of Haywood of only splitting wards in ‘exceptional and & Hixon in the Lichfield constituency to compelling cases’. make the electorate within the permitted electorate range. We received a number 3.98 We consider the assistant of objections to the inclusion of the commissioners’ recommendations are Whittington & Streethay ward in the a significant improvement on the initial Tamworth constituency. For example, proposals and accept them. James Morris (BCE-15515) commented ’Streethay and Whittington are part of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent the Lichfield community, the residents from this area are connected to the city of 3.99 Of the 12 existing constituencies in Lichfield, it is where the locals use public this sub-region, only four have electorates services, healthcare, educational, leisure that are currently within 5% of the electoral and retail establishments. Lichfield is quota. Under our initial proposals we better placed to represent the needs of proposed a reduction of one in the these areas. Streethay and Whittington number of constituencies in this sub- are Lichfield, always have been Lichfield region, and we recommended that three and always should be, it would be against of the existing constituencies (Burton, the residents’ wishes to become part Cannock Chase, and South Staffordshire) of Tamworth.’ The Conservative Party remain unchanged. There was support (BCE-32257) counter-proposed that the for our proposals not to change these Hammerwich with Wall ward should be three constituencies, which the assistant included in the Tamworth constituency, in commissioners endorsed. place of the Whittington & Streethay ward. Page 107

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 37 This alternative was supported by Michael 3.103 The assistant commissioners Fabricant MP (Lichfield) (BCE-32075 and decided that the proposed Lichfield and BCE-32053). Tamworth constituencies should not be altered. They considered that the town of 3.101 We also received objections to the Burntwood should not be divided between inclusion of the Haywood & Hixon ward constituencies to allow for the villages in the proposed Lichfield constituency. of Streethay and Whittington’s ties to For example, Catherine Gill, on behalf of Lichfield to be recognised. They noted that Hixon Parish Council (BCE-27544), wrote the electorate of the existing Tamworth ‘Hixon Parish Council does not want Hixon constituency was outside the permitted to move to the Lichfield Parliamentary electorate range and something had to Constituency and wants Hixon to remain in be added to the existing constituency to the Stafford Parliamentary Constituency. increase the electorate. They had already Hixon has a strong connection with rejected the option of adding electors Stafford for many reasons (including that from the neighbouring North Warwickshire Stafford is the local Borough Council) district, as they saw no reason to cross and has absolutely no connection with the county boundary. They noted that Lichfield, which is some 15 miles distance it would be possible just to include the from Hixon. Hixon would be right on the polling district that contained Streethay edge of the proposed new boundary, in a Lichfield constituency and to achieve on the North-Western fringe. There are the permitted electorate range. However, other ways of moving the boundaries to they rejected this option as it had not been get the numbers correct that would leave suggested by any respondent during either Hixon with Stafford, which is only 8 miles of the two initial consultation stages, and away. Hixon has had an allegiance with because it would mean that Whittington Stafford for many years and this should would be in the Tamworth constituency, be maintained by keeping Hixon in the even though there was strong opposition Stafford constituency.’ from that village too.

3.102 Our assistant commissioners 3.104 The assistant commissioners noted visited the Hammerwich with Wall, and the opposition from the Haywood & Hixon Whittington & Streethay wards. They noted ward to being included in the Lichfield that Streethay was close to the town of constituency, but they noted that this Lichfield, but that the Hammerwich with was the best option for ensuring that the Wall ward contained part of the town of Lichfield constituency had an electorate Burntwood and they considered that to within the permitted electorate range. divide the town between constituencies would not be appropriate. They noted 3.105 In our initial proposals we the evidence from Ellen Bird, on behalf of proposed a Staffordshire Moorlands Hammerwich Parish Council (BCE-37856), constituency that contained all of the in support of the initial proposals, and district of Staffordshire Moorlands. We of Councillor David Smith (BCE-38930) also proposed a Newcastle-under-Lyme who said that Hammerwich looked to constituency that would contain all of Burntwood for many of its services. the town of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Page 108

38 Boundary Commission for England all of the civil parish of Kidsgrove. In the argued that ‘the Commission’s initial City of Stoke-on-Trent, we proposed a proposals: Ignore the long-established Stoke-on-Trent North constituency that social boundaries of Kidsgrove; Ignores contained 14 wards from the north of the will of Kidsgrove’s population; Disrupt the city. We also proposed a Stoke-on- patterns of electoral representation; Trent South constituency that contained Would lead to the town of Kidsgrove being 18 wards from the centre and south- moved for the third time in three boundary east of the city. We decide to include reviews; Ignore the size and significance of the five remaining Stoke-on-Trent wards Kidsgrove in the Constituency Name.’ together with four Newcastle-under-Lyme wards and six Stafford wards in a West 3.108 The counter-proposals from Staffordshire constituency. Aaron Fear (BCE-31726) and Adrian Bailey (BCE‑32166) both suggest a 3.106 There was general support for division of Stoke-on-Trent that allows for our proposed Staffordshire Moorlands, three constituencies to be formed, each Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Stafford containing a majority of Stoke‑on‑Trent constituencies. However, there were wards. John Chanin (BCE-25109) objections to the inclusion of urban suggested a similar counter-proposal. Stoke-on-Trent city wards in a largely rural West Staffordshire constituency. 3.109 The counter-proposal from A number of counter-proposals were Mr Bailey and Mr Fear suggested a received suggesting alternative divisions Stoke‑on‑Trent North and Kidsgrove of Stoke-on-Trent between constituencies. constituency that would contain 11 wards Paul Farrelly MP (Newcastle-under- from the north of the City of Stoke‑on‑Trent Lyme) (BCE-26500, and BCE-38638 in and the five Kidsgrove Town wards, which the second consultation) objected to any would be very similar to the existing counter-proposal that would divide the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency. They town of Newcastle-under-Lyme between also suggested a Stoke-on-Trent Central constituencies, such as that proposed by constituency that would contain 15 wards Rob Flello (then MP for Stoke-on-Trent and be largely based on the existing South) (BCE-29654). The Conservative Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency. Party (BCE-32257), the Labour Party The remaining 11 Stoke‑on‑Trent wards (BCE‑33146) and the Liberal Democrat would form a Stoke‑on-Trent South Party (BCE-31732) did not suggest any and Stone constituency together with changes to our initial proposals for the five wards from Stafford Borough, Stoke-on-Trent constituencies. including the town of Stone. The Stafford borough ward of Eccleshall would be 3.107 Mr Farrelly MP supported the included in the Stafford constituency. inclusion of the five wards of the civil parish The Newcastle‑under-Lyme constituency of Kidsgrove in the Newcastle‑under- would include the whole of the town of Lyme constituency, but Kidsgrove Town Newcastle-under-Lyme and the four Council (BCE-38316) objected and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough wards said that Kidsgrove’s ties were with the of Audley and Bignall End, Halmerend, Stoke‑on‑Trent North constituency. They Loggerheads and Whitmore, and Madeley. Page 109

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 39 The Borough of Newcastle‑under‑Lyme 3.112 The Conservative Party had also would only be divided between two suggested that the proposed Burton constituencies and the suggested and Tamworth constituencies should Stoke‑on-Trent South and Stone be renamed, respectively, Burton and constituency would only contain parts Uttoxeter, and Tamworth and South East of two districts, and not three as the Staffordshire. The assistant commissioners proposed West Staffordshire constituency decided that there was no need to change does. It was also noted that this counter- the name of an otherwise unaltered Burton proposal more closely matched the constituency, and of a largely unaltered existing constituencies. Tamworth constituency.

3.110 Having weighed up our initial 3.113 We accept our assistant proposals, all the counter-proposals commissioners’ recommendations for and suggestions for Staffordshire Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent. and Stoke‑on-Trent, our assistant commissioners considered that the identical counter-proposal put forward by Mr Fear and Mr Bailey was a significant improvement on the initial proposals in the Stoke-on-Trent area and would satisfy most of the objections to them. They considered that those changes struck a better balance than our initial proposals applying the criteria to which we work.

3.111 They noted the evidence of the ties between the villages of Streethay and Whittington, and the town of Lichfield, but also noted the evidence in relation to the Hammerwich with Wall ward. They advised us that ties would be broken whichever ward was chosen, and concluded not to alter our initial proposals for Lichfield and Tamworth. They also rejected the division of the Whittington & Streethay ward between constituencies on the grounds that it did not meet the test of ‘exceptional and compelling circumstances’.

Page 110

40 Boundary Commission for England 4 How to have your say

4.1 We are consulting on our revised 4.3 When responding, we ask people to proposals for an eight-week period, from bear in mind the tight constraints placed 17 October 2017 to 11 December 2017. on the Commission by the rules set by We encourage everyone to use this last Parliament and the decisions we have opportunity to help finalise the design taken regarding adoption of a regional of the new constituencies – the more approach and use of local government public views we hear, the more informed wards discussed in chapter 2 and in the our decisions will be before making final Guide. Most importantly: recommendations to Government. • We cannot recommend constituencies 4.2 While people are welcome to write to that have electorates that are more us on any issue regarding the constituency than 5% above or below the electoral boundaries we set out in this report and quota (apart from the two covering the the accompanying maps, our main focus Isle of Wight). during this final consultation is on those • We are obliged by law to use the constituencies we have revised since our Parliamentary electorate figures as initial proposals. While we will consider they were in the statutory electoral representations that comment again on the register published by local electoral initial proposals that we have not revised, it registration officers between is likely that particularly compelling further December 2015 and February evidence or submissions will be needed 2016. We therefore cannot base our to persuade us to depart at this late stage proposals for this constituency review in the review from those of our initial on any subsequent electorate figures. proposals, which have withstood intensive • We are basing our revised proposals scrutiny of objections in the process of on local government ward boundaries consultation and review to which they have (at May 2015) as the building blocks already been subject. Representations of constituencies. Exceptional and relating to initial proposals that we have not compelling evidence needs to be revised and that simply repeat evidence or provided to persuade us that splitting arguments that have already been raised a ward across two constituencies is in either of the previous two consultation necessary or appropriate. stages are likely to carry little weight with • We have constructed constituencies the Commission. within regions, so as not to cross regional boundaries. Particularly compelling reasons would need to be given to persuade us that we should depart from this approach.

Page 111

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 41 4.4 These issues mean that we http://boundarycommissionforengland. encourage people who are making a independent.gov.uk/freedom-of- representation on a specific area to bear information-and-data-protection in mind the knock-on effects of their counter-proposals. The Commission What do we want views on? must look at the recommendations for new constituencies across the whole 4.7 We would like particularly to ask two region (and, indeed, across England). things of those considering responding We therefore ask everyone wishing to on the revised proposals we have set out. respond to our consultation to bear in mind First, if you support our revised proposals, the impact of their counter-proposals on please tell us so, as well as telling us neighbouring constituencies, and on those where you object to them. Past experience further afield across the region. suggests that too often people who agree with our proposals do not respond in How can you give us your views? support, while those who object to them do respond to make their points – this can 4.5 We encourage everyone to make give a distorted view of the balance of use of our consultation website, public support or objection to proposals. www.bce2018.org.uk, when contributing to Second, if you are considering objecting to our consultation. That website contains all our revised proposals, do please use the the information you will need to contribute resources available on our website and at to the design of the new constituencies, the places of deposit (maps and electorate including the revised proposals reports figures) to put forward counter-proposals and maps, all the representations we have which are in accordance with the rules to received so far during the review, the initial which we are working. proposals reports and maps, the electorate sizes of every ward, and an online facility 4.8 Above all, however, we encourage where you can instantly and directly everyone to have their say on our revised submit to us your views on our revised proposals and, in doing so, to become proposals. If you are unable to access involved in drawing the map of new our consultation website for any reason, Parliamentary constituencies. This is the you can still write to us at 35 Great Smith final chance to contribute to the design Street, London SW1P 3BQ. of the new constituencies, and the more views we get on those constituencies, 4.6 We encourage everyone, before the more informed our consideration in submitting a representation, to read our developing them will be, and the better we approach to data protection and privacy will be able to reflect the public’s views in and, in particular, the publication of the final recommendations we present in all representations and personal data September 2018. within them. This is available in our Data Protection and Privacy Policy at:

Page 112

42 Boundary Commission for England Annex A: Revised proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

1. Aldridge, Brownhills and Bloxwich BC 76,572 Aldridge Central and South Walsall 10,770 Aldridge North and Walsall Wood Walsall 9,918 Bloxwich East Walsall 8,672 Bloxwich West Walsall 9,541 Brownhills Walsall 9,218 Pelsall Walsall 8,758 Rushall-Shelfield Walsall 9,030 Streetly Walsall 10,665

2. Birmingham Brandwood BC 72,083 Billesley Birmingham 18,277 Bournville Birmingham 18,449 Brandwood Birmingham 17,728 Moseley and Kings Heath Birmingham 17,629

3. Birmingham Edgbaston and Selly Oak BC 76,801 Bartley Green Birmingham 16,768 Edgbaston Birmingham 14,069 Harborne Birmingham 15,548 Quinton Birmingham 16,410 Selly Oak Birmingham 14,006

4. Birmingham Erdington and Perry Barr BC 77,920 Erdington Birmingham 15,478 Kingstanding Birmingham 16,007 Perry Barr Birmingham 15,368 Stockland Green Birmingham 15,036 Tyburn Birmingham 16,031

5. Birmingham Hall Green BC 74,594 Acocks Green Birmingham 18,285 Hall Green Birmingham 18,731 Sparkbrook Birmingham 18,323 Springfield Birmingham 19,255

6. Birmingham Hodge Hill BC 71,165 Hodge Hill Birmingham 17,292 Shard End Birmingham 17,647 Stechford and Yardley North Birmingham 17,092 Washwood Heath Birmingham 19,134

7. Birmingham Ladywood BC 74,276 Aston Birmingham 17,430 Ladywood Birmingham 15,042 Lozells and East Handsworth Birmingham 17,558 Soho Birmingham 15,513 Soho and Victoria Sandwell 8,733

8. Birmingham Northfield BC 74,447 Kings Norton Birmingham 16,097 Longbridge Birmingham 17,839 Northfield Birmingham 18,602 Weoley Birmingham 16,839 Rubery North Bromsgrove 2,507 Rubery South Bromsgrove 2,563 Page 113

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 43 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

9. Birmingham Yardley BC 71,365 Bordesley Green Birmingham 19,100 Nechells Birmingham 17,731 Sheldon Birmingham 15,778 South Yardley Birmingham 18,756

10. Bridgnorth and The Wrekin CC 73,850 Albrighton Shropshire 3,549 Alveley and Claverley Shropshire 3,338 Bridgnorth East and Astley Abbotts Shropshire 5,322 Bridgnorth West and Tasley Shropshire 5,433 Broseley Shropshire 3,545 Shifnal North Shropshire 3,533 Shifnal South and Cosford Shropshire 3,645 Worfield Shropshire 2,944 Admaston & Bratton Telford and Wrekin 2,208 Apley Castle Telford and Wrekin 2,376 Arleston Telford and Wrekin 2,137 Church Aston & Lilleshall Telford and Wrekin 2,381 College Telford and Wrekin 2,134 Dothill Telford and Wrekin 2,141 Edgmond & Ercall Magna Telford and Wrekin 4,549 Ercall Telford and Wrekin 2,347 Haygate Telford and Wrekin 2,169 Muxton Telford and Wrekin 4,977 Newport North & West Telford and Wrekin 4,431 Newport South & East Telford and Wrekin 3,897 Park Telford and Wrekin 2,161 Shawbirch Telford and Wrekin 2,323 Wrockwardine Telford and Wrekin 2,310

11. Bromsgrove and Droitwich CC 77,216 Aston Fields Bromsgrove 2,492 Avoncroft Bromsgrove 2,424 Belbroughton & Romsley Bromsgrove 5,193 Bromsgrove Central Bromsgrove 2,363 Catshill North Bromsgrove 2,208 Catshill South Bromsgrove 2,174 Charford Bromsgrove 2,318 Hagley East Bromsgrove 2,044 Hagley West Bromsgrove 2,680 Hill Top Bromsgrove 1,778 Lickey Hills Bromsgrove 2,242 Lowes Hill Bromsgrove 2,565 Marlbrook Bromsgrove 2,395 Norton Bromsgrove 2,058 Perryfields Bromsgrove 1,385 Rock Hill Bromsgrove 2,414 Sanders Park Bromsgrove 2,671 Sidemoor Bromsgrove 2,530 Slideslow Bromsgrove 2,635 Tardebigge Bromsgrove 2,209 Dodderhill Wychavon 2,129 Droitwich Central Wychavon 1,930 Droitwich East Wychavon 4,257 Droitwich South East Wychavon 4,185 Droitwich South West Wychavon 3,862 Droitwich West Wychavon 3,747 Hartlebury Wychavon 2,152 Lovett and North Claines Wychavon 4,230 Ombersley Wychavon 1,946

Page 114

44 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

12. Burton CC 72,542 Abbey East Staffordshire 2,276 Anglesey East Staffordshire 3,647 Branston East Staffordshire 5,409 Brizlincote East Staffordshire 4,165 Burton East Staffordshire 1,883 Churnet East Staffordshire 2,141 Crown East Staffordshire 2,049 Eton Park East Staffordshire 4,016 Heath East Staffordshire 4,605 Horninglow East Staffordshire 6,070 Rolleston on Dove East Staffordshire 2,700 Shobnall East Staffordshire 4,565 Stapenhill East Staffordshire 5,538 Stretton East Staffordshire 6,115 Town East Staffordshire 5,119 Tutbury and Outwoods East Staffordshire 4,741 Weaver East Staffordshire 1,645 Winshill East Staffordshire 5,858

13. Cannock Chase CC 73,470 Brereton and Ravenhill Cannock Chase 5,028 Cannock East Cannock Chase 5,128 Cannock North Cannock Chase 5,447 Cannock South Cannock Chase 5,734 Cannock West Cannock Chase 5,653 Etching Hill and The Heath Cannock Chase 5,178 Hagley Cannock Chase 3,308 Hawks Green Cannock Chase 5,511 Heath Hayes East and Wimblebury Cannock Chase 4,825 Hednesford Green Heath Cannock Chase 3,845 Hednesford North Cannock Chase 5,220 Hednesford South Cannock Chase 4,147 Norton Canes Cannock Chase 5,647 Rawnsley Cannock Chase 3,714 Western Springs Cannock Chase 5,085

14. Coventry East BC 73,304 Binley and Willenhall Coventry 11,588 Henley Coventry 12,310 Longford Coventry 12,538 Lower Stoke Coventry 13,029 Upper Stoke Coventry 11,520 Wyken Coventry 12,319

15. Coventry North West BC 77,745 Bablake Coventry 12,376 Foleshill Coventry 10,419 Holbrook Coventry 11,536 Radford Coventry 11,633 Sherbourne Coventry 11,136 St. Michael’s Coventry 9,766 Whoberley Coventry 10,879

16. Coventry South and Kenilworth BC 77,275 Cheylesmore Coventry 11,308 Earlsdon Coventry 11,604 Wainbody Coventry 10,670 Westwood Coventry 12,244 Woodlands Coventry 13,156 Abbey Warwick 5,292 Park Hill Warwick 6,455 St. John’s Warwick 6,546 Page 115

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 45 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

17. Darlaston and Tipton BC 76,902 Great Bridge Sandwell 9,166 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGA) Sandwell 1,557 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGB) Sandwell 1,531 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGG) Sandwell 783 Princes End Sandwell 8,856 Tipton Green Sandwell 9,619 Wednesbury North Sandwell 8,959 Wednesbury South Sandwell 9,325 Bentley and Darlaston North Walsall 8,927 Darlaston South Walsall 9,210 Pleck Walsall 8,969

18. Dudley BC 75,255 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H05) Dudley 832 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H06) Dudley 836 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H07) Dudley 1,455 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H08) Dudley 683 Brockmoor and Pensnett Dudley 9,585 Castle and Priory Dudley 11,018 Gornal Dudley 10,502 Kingswinford North and Wall Heath Dudley 10,108 Kingswinford South Dudley 10,272 St. James’s Dudley 9,842 Wordsley Dudley 10,122

19. Evesham CC 72,477 Kempsey Malvern Hills 3,051 Longdon Malvern Hills 1,673 Morton Malvern Hills 1,684 Ripple Malvern Hills 1,436 Upton and Hanley Malvern Hills 3,377 Badsey Wychavon 2,233 Bengeworth Wychavon 4,394 Bowbrook Wychavon 2,339 Bredon Wychavon 2,089 Bretforton and Offenham Wychavon 2,203 Broadway and Wickhamford Wychavon 3,818 Drakes Broughton Wychavon 1,920 Eckington Wychavon 2,215 Elmley Castle and Somerville Wychavon 2,015 Evesham North Wychavon 3,324 Evesham South Wychavon 3,732 Fladbury Wychavon 2,214 Great Hampton Wychavon 2,052 Harvington and Norton Wychavon 2,048 Honeybourne and Pebworth Wychavon 2,007 Inkberrow Wychavon 4,576 Little Hampton Wychavon 3,601 Pershore Wychavon 5,836 Pinvin Wychavon 2,309 South Bredon Hill Wychavon 1,913 The Littletons Wychavon 2,221 Upton Snodsbury Wychavon 2,197

20. Halesowen and Rowley Regis BC 77,651 Belle Vale Dudley 10,494 Halesowen North Dudley 9,468 Halesowen South Dudley 9,910 Hayley Green and Cradley South Dudley 9,285 Netherton, Woodside and St. Andrews Dudley 10,352 Blackheath Sandwell 9,124 Page 116

46 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Cradley Heath and Old Hill Sandwell 9,982 Rowley Sandwell 9,036

21. Hereford and South Herefordshire CC 77,370 Aylestone Hill Herefordshire 2,412 Backbury Herefordshire 2,242 Belmont Rural Herefordshire 2,505 Birch Herefordshire 2,370 Bobblestock Herefordshire 2,278 Central Herefordshire 2,159 College Herefordshire 2,679 Credenhill Herefordshire 2,276 Dinedor Hill Herefordshire 2,602 Eign Hill Herefordshire 2,574 Golden Valley North Herefordshire 2,386 Golden Valley South Herefordshire 2,546 Greyfriars Herefordshire 2,482 Hagley Herefordshire 2,752 Hinton & Hunderton Herefordshire 2,599 Holmer Herefordshire 2,599 Kerne Bridge Herefordshire 2,437 Kings Acre Herefordshire 2,537 Llangarron Herefordshire 2,671 Newton Farm Herefordshire 2,504 Penyard Herefordshire 2,631 Red Hill Herefordshire 2,757 Ross East Herefordshire 2,806 Ross North Herefordshire 2,541 Ross West Herefordshire 2,535 Saxon Gate Herefordshire 2,618 Stoney Street Herefordshire 2,603 Tupsley Herefordshire 2,489 Whitecross Herefordshire 2,463 Widemarsh Herefordshire 1,781 Wormside Herefordshire 2,536

22. Lichfield CC 74,778 Bagots East Staffordshire 2,155 Needwood East Staffordshire 4,441 Yoxall East Staffordshire 2,159 Alrewas & Fradley Lichfield 4,510 Armitage with Handsacre Lichfield 5,693 Boley Park Lichfield 3,447 Boney Hay & Central Lichfield 5,065 Chadsmead Lichfield 3,304 Chase Terrace Lichfield 3,717 Chasetown Lichfield 2,640 Colton & the Ridwares Lichfield 1,768 Curborough Lichfield 3,201 Hammerwich with Wall Lichfield 3,423 Highfield Lichfield 3,652 Leomansley Lichfield 4,879 Longdon Lichfield 1,694 St. John’s Lichfield 4,407 Stowe Lichfield 4,725 Summerfield & All Saints Lichfield 4,850 Haywood & Hixon Stafford 5,048

23. Ludlow and Leominster CC 73,503 Arrow Herefordshire 2,798 Bircher Herefordshire 2,916

Page 117

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 47 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Castle Herefordshire 2,388 Kington Herefordshire 2,445 Leominster East Herefordshire 2,544 Leominster North & Rural Herefordshire 2,832 Leominster South Herefordshire 2,465 Leominster West Herefordshire 1,997 Mortimer Herefordshire 2,542 Queenswood Herefordshire 2,556 Sutton Walls Herefordshire 2,392 Weobley Herefordshire 2,725 Bishop’s Castle Shropshire 2,747 Brown Clee Shropshire 3,015 Church Stretton and Craven Arms Shropshire 7,141 Clee Shropshire 3,477 Cleobury Mortimer Shropshire 5,614 Clun Shropshire 3,014 Corvedale Shropshire 2,991 Highley Shropshire 2,574 Ludlow East Shropshire 2,935 Ludlow North Shropshire 2,942 Ludlow South Shropshire 3,047 Much Wenlock Shropshire 3,406

24. Malvern and Ledbury CC 72,441 Bishops Frome & Cradley Herefordshire 2,433 Bromyard Bringsty Herefordshire 2,548 Bromyard West Herefordshire 2,222 Hampton Herefordshire 2,666 Hope End Herefordshire 2,805 Ledbury North Herefordshire 2,436 Ledbury South Herefordshire 2,385 Ledbury West Herefordshire 2,479 Old Gore Herefordshire 2,424 Three Crosses Herefordshire 2,658 Alfrick and Leigh Malvern Hills 2,844 Baldwin Malvern Hills 1,654 Broadheath Malvern Hills 2,782 Chase Malvern Hills 4,648 Dyson Perrins Malvern Hills 3,330 Hallow Malvern Hills 1,488 Lindridge Malvern Hills 1,846 Link Malvern Hills 4,825 Martley Malvern Hills 1,411 Pickersleigh Malvern Hills 4,433 Powick Malvern Hills 3,058 Priory Malvern Hills 3,039 Teme Valley Malvern Hills 1,544 Tenbury Malvern Hills 2,924 Wells Malvern Hills 2,630 West Malvern Hills 3,267 Woodbury Malvern Hills 1,662

25. Meriden CC 78,247 Bickenhill Solihull 8,941 Castle Bromwich Solihull 9,193 Chelmsley Wood Solihull 8,067 Dorridge and Hockley Heath Solihull 8,686 Elmdon Solihull 9,255 Kingshurst and Fordbridge Solihull 8,506 Knowle Solihull 8,183 Meriden Solihull 9,421 Smith’s Wood Solihull 7,995 Page 118

48 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

26. Newcastle-under-Lyme CC 71,622 Audley and Bignall End Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,440 Bradwell Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,655 Chesterton Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,926 Clayton Newcastle-under-Lyme 3,123 Cross Heath Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,261 Halmerend Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,947 Holditch Newcastle-under-Lyme 3,201 Keele Newcastle-under-Lyme 1,220 Knutton and Silverdale Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,890 Loggerheads and Whitmore Newcastle-under-Lyme 5,403 Madeley Newcastle-under-Lyme 3,283 May Bank Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,643 Porthill Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,984 Seabridge Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,362 Silverdale and Parksite Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,983 Thistleberry Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,628 Town Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,949 Westlands Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,377 Wolstanton Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,347

27. North Shropshire CC 77,768 Cheswardine Shropshire 3,135 Ellesmere Urban Shropshire 3,060 Gobowen, Selattyn and Weston Rhyn Shropshire 5,457 Hodnet Shropshire 2,780 Llanymynech Shropshire 3,291 Market Drayton East Shropshire 3,589 Market Drayton West Shropshire 6,500 Oswestry East Shropshire 6,665 Oswestry South Shropshire 3,082 Oswestry West Shropshire 2,599 Prees Shropshire 3,347 Ruyton and Baschurch Shropshire 2,992 Shawbury Shropshire 3,383 St. Martin’s Shropshire 3,428 St. Oswald Shropshire 3,186 The Meres Shropshire 3,500 Wem Shropshire 6,233 Whitchurch North Shropshire 5,232 Whitchurch South Shropshire 3,146 Whittington Shropshire 3,163

28. North Warwickshire CC 74,124 Arley and Whitacre North Warwickshire 4,050 Atherstone Central North Warwickshire 2,728 Atherstone North North Warwickshire 2,659 Atherstone South and Mancetter North Warwickshire 2,768 Baddesley and Grendon North Warwickshire 3,063 Coleshill North North Warwickshire 2,468 Coleshill South North Warwickshire 2,698 Curdworth North Warwickshire 2,666 Dordon North Warwickshire 2,276 Fillongley North Warwickshire 2,643 Hartshill North Warwickshire 2,837 Hurley and Wood End North Warwickshire 2,880 Kingsbury North Warwickshire 2,945 Newton Regis and Warton North Warwickshire 2,712 Polesworth East North Warwickshire 2,602 Polesworth West North Warwickshire 2,623 Water Orton North Warwickshire 2,721 Bede Nuneaton and Bedworth 4,910 Page 119

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 49 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Exhall Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,760 Heath Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,480 Poplar Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,449 Slough Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,186

29. Nuneaton CC 76,385 Abbey Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,583 Arbury Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,084 Attleborough Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,385 Bar Pool Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,160 Bulkington Nuneaton and Bedworth 4,916 Camp Hill Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,312 Galley Common Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,834 Kingswood Nuneaton and Bedworth 4,768 St. Nicolas Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,427 Weddington Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,748 Wem Brook Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,040 Whitestone Nuneaton and Bedworth 5,529 Revel and Binley Woods Rugby 5,170 Wolston and the Lawfords Rugby 5,439 Wolvey and Shilton Rugby 1,990

30. Redditch CC 77,689 Alvechurch South Bromsgrove 2,248 Alvechurch Village Bromsgrove 2,234 Barnt Green & Hopwood Bromsgrove 2,208 Cofton Bromsgrove 2,142 Drakes Cross Bromsgrove 2,489 Hollywood Bromsgrove 2,390 Wythall East Bromsgrove 2,344 Wythall West Bromsgrove 2,139 Abbey Redditch 4,213 Astwood Bank and Feckenham Redditch 4,596 Batchley & Brockhill Redditch 5,677 Central Redditch 4,015 Church Hill Redditch 5,654 Crabbs Cross Redditch 4,431 Greenlands Redditch 5,970 Headless Cross and Oakenshaw Redditch 6,588 Lodge Park Redditch 3,633 Matchborough Redditch 4,338 West Redditch 4,360 Winyates Redditch 6,020

31. Rugby and Southam CC 76,575 Admirals and Cawston Rugby 5,508 Benn Rugby 4,487 Bilton Rugby 5,000 Clifton, Newton and Churchover Rugby 1,683 Coton and Boughton Rugby 4,789 Dunsmore Rugby 5,761 Eastlands Rugby 5,099 Hillmorton Rugby 4,073 Leam Valley Rugby 1,918 New Bilton Rugby 4,476 Newbold and Brownsover Rugby 4,839 Paddox Rugby 5,396 Rokeby and Overslade Rugby 5,559 Bishop’s Itchington Stratford-on-Avon 2,771 Harbury Stratford-on-Avon 2,649 Long Itchington & Stockton Stratford-on-Avon 2,949 Napton & Fenny Compton Stratford-on-Avon 2,548 Page 120

50 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Southam North Stratford-on-Avon 2,440 Southam South Stratford-on-Avon 2,565 Radford Semele Warwick 2,065

32. Shrewsbury CC 77,830 Abbey Shropshire 2,971 Bagley Shropshire 3,339 Battlefield Shropshire 2,782 Bayston Hill, Column and Sutton Shropshire 9,640 Belle Vue Shropshire 3,270 Bowbrook Shropshire 2,882 Burnell Shropshire 3,430 Castlefields and Ditherington Shropshire 3,149 Chirbury and Worthen Shropshire 2,302 Copthorne Shropshire 3,030 Harlescott Shropshire 3,265 Longden Shropshire 3,108 Loton Shropshire 3,081 Meole Shropshire 3,002 Monkmoor Shropshire 3,108 Porthill Shropshire 3,399 Quarry and Coton Hill Shropshire 2,807 Radbrook Shropshire 3,296 Rea Valley Shropshire 3,143 Severn Valley Shropshire 3,262 Sundorne Shropshire 3,012 Tern Shropshire 3,567 Underdale Shropshire 2,985

33. Solihull BC 75,626 Blythe Solihull 9,760 Lyndon Solihull 9,720 Olton Solihull 9,528 Shirley East Solihull 8,610 Shirley South Solihull 9,519 Shirley West Solihull 9,108 Silhill Solihull 9,119 St. Alphege Solihull 10,262

34. South Staffordshire CC 72,132 Bilbrook South Staffordshire 3,160 Brewood and Coven South Staffordshire 5,374 Cheslyn Hay North and Saredon South Staffordshire 3,327 Cheslyn Hay South South Staffordshire 2,908 Codsall North South Staffordshire 3,265 Codsall South South Staffordshire 3,135 Essington South Staffordshire 4,020 Featherstone and Shareshill South Staffordshire 3,663 Great Wyrley Landywood South Staffordshire 3,639 Great Wyrley Town South Staffordshire 4,936 Himley and Swindon South Staffordshire 1,788 Huntington and Hatherton South Staffordshire 3,835 Kinver South Staffordshire 5,912 Pattingham and Patshull South Staffordshire 1,805 Perton Dippons South Staffordshire 1,530 Perton East South Staffordshire 1,689 Perton Lakeside South Staffordshire 4,657 Trysull and Seisdon South Staffordshire 1,759 Wombourne North and Lower Penn South Staffordshire 5,203 Wombourne South East South Staffordshire 3,119 Wombourne South West South Staffordshire 3,408

Page 121

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 51 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

35. Stafford CC 77,970 Penkridge North East and Acton Trussell South Staffordshire 2,949 Penkridge South East South Staffordshire 3,377 Penkridge West South Staffordshire 1,758 Wheaton Aston, Bishopswood and Lapley South Staffordshire 3,191 Baswich Stafford 4,993 Common Stafford 2,629 Coton Stafford 4,080 Doxey & Castletown Stafford 2,334 Eccleshall Stafford 5,074 Forebridge Stafford 2,071 Gnosall & Woodseaves Stafford 5,177 Highfields & Western Downs Stafford 4,769 Holmcroft Stafford 5,334 Littleworth Stafford 4,282 Manor Stafford 5,150 Milford Stafford 2,438 Milwich Stafford 4,285 Penkside Stafford 2,411 Rowley Stafford 2,364 Seighford & Church Eaton Stafford 4,623 Weeping Cross & Wildwood Stafford 4,681

36. Staffordshire Moorlands CC 78,211 Alton Staffordshire Moorlands 1,151 Bagnall and Stanley Staffordshire Moorlands 1,376 Biddulph East Staffordshire Moorlands 4,516 Biddulph Moor Staffordshire Moorlands 1,375 Biddulph North Staffordshire Moorlands 4,391 Biddulph South Staffordshire Moorlands 1,416 Biddulph West Staffordshire Moorlands 4,271 Brown Edge and Endon Staffordshire Moorlands 4,005 Caverswall Staffordshire Moorlands 1,412 Cellarhead Staffordshire Moorlands 2,584 Cheadle North East Staffordshire Moorlands 2,771 Cheadle South East Staffordshire Moorlands 2,928 Cheadle West Staffordshire Moorlands 4,060 Checkley Staffordshire Moorlands 4,612 Cheddleton Staffordshire Moorlands 4,358 Churnet Staffordshire Moorlands 2,611 Dane Staffordshire Moorlands 1,275 Forsbrook Staffordshire Moorlands 4,182 Hamps Valley Staffordshire Moorlands 1,485 Horton Staffordshire Moorlands 1,572 Ipstones Staffordshire Moorlands 1,540 Leek East Staffordshire Moorlands 3,944 Leek North Staffordshire Moorlands 4,110 Leek South Staffordshire Moorlands 4,385 Leek West Staffordshire Moorlands 3,752 Manifold Staffordshire Moorlands 1,485 Werrington Staffordshire Moorlands 2,644

37. Stoke-on-Trent Central BC 71,730 Abbey Hulton and Townsend Stoke-on-Trent 7,369 Bentilee and Ubberley Stoke-on-Trent 7,346 Birches Head and Central Forest Park Stoke-on-Trent 8,101 Boothen and Oak Hill Stoke-on-Trent 4,338 Eaton Park Stoke-on-Trent 3,675 Etruria and Hanley Stoke-on-Trent 3,875 Fenton East Stoke-on-Trent 4,307 Fenton West and Mount Pleasant Stoke-on-Trent 4,073 Hanley Park and Shelton Stoke-on-Trent 2,507 Page 122

52 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Hartshill and Basford Stoke-on-Trent 4,582 Joiner’s Square Stoke-on-Trent 3,759 Meir Hay Stoke-on-Trent 4,023 Penkhull and Stoke Stoke-on-Trent 4,682 Sandford Hill Stoke-on-Trent 4,405 Springfields and Trent Vale Stoke-on-Trent 4,688

38. Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove BC 75,725 Butt Lane Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,096 Kidsgrove Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,811 Newchapel Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,679 Ravenscliffe Newcastle-under-Lyme 3,065 Talke Newcastle-under-Lyme 2,974 Baddeley, Milton and Norton Stoke-on-Trent 13,371 Bradeley and Chell Heath Stoke-on-Trent 3,906 Burslem Central Stoke-on-Trent 4,009 Burslem Park Stoke-on-Trent 4,054 Ford Green and Smallthorne Stoke-on-Trent 4,501 Goldenhill and Sandyford Stoke-on-Trent 4,314 Great Chell and Packmoor Stoke-on-Trent 7,982 Little Chell and Stanfield Stoke-on-Trent 4,333 Moorcroft Stoke-on-Trent 3,779 Sneyd Green Stoke-on-Trent 3,936 Tunstall Stoke-on-Trent 3,915

39. Stoke-on-Trent South and Stone CC 73,842 Barlaston Stafford 2,164 Fulford Stafford 4,658 St. Michael’s & Stonefield Stafford 7,766 Swynnerton & Oulton Stafford 4,679 Walton Stafford 4,548 Blurton East Stoke-on-Trent 4,226 Blurton West and Newstead Stoke-on-Trent 4,140 Broadway and Longton East Stoke-on-Trent 4,002 Dresden and Florence Stoke-on-Trent 3,793 Hanford and Trentham Stoke-on-Trent 9,519 Hollybush and Longton West Stoke-on-Trent 4,438 Lightwood North and Normacot Stoke-on-Trent 3,766 Meir North Stoke-on-Trent 4,507 Meir Park Stoke-on-Trent 3,886 Meir South Stoke-on-Trent 3,826 Weston Coyney Stoke-on-Trent 3,924

40. Stourbridge BC 75,342 Amblecote Dudley 10,445 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H01) Dudley 1,455 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H02) Dudley 1,505 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H03) Dudley 1,460 Part of Brierley Hill (polling district H04) Dudley 1,619 Cradley and Wollescote Dudley 9,756 Lye and Stourbridge North Dudley 9,264 Norton Dudley 9,712 Pedmore and Stourbridge East Dudley 9,895 Quarry Bank and Dudley Wood Dudley 10,113 Wollaston and Stourbridge Town Dudley 10,118

41. Stratford-on-Avon CC 78,370 Alcester & Rural Stratford-on-Avon 2,878 Alcester Town Stratford-on-Avon 3,005 Avenue Stratford-on-Avon 1,902 Bidford East Stratford-on-Avon 2,664 Bidford West & Salford Stratford-on-Avon 2,592 Bishopton Stratford-on-Avon 2,488 Page 123

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 53 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

Brailes & Compton Stratford-on-Avon 2,764 Bridgetown Stratford-on-Avon 3,024 Clopton Stratford-on-Avon 1,690 Ettington Stratford-on-Avon 2,703 Guildhall Stratford-on-Avon 2,457 Hathaway Stratford-on-Avon 2,023 Henley-in-Arden Stratford-on-Avon 3,147 Kineton Stratford-on-Avon 2,720 Kinwarton Stratford-on-Avon 2,229 Quinton Stratford-on-Avon 2,360 Red Horse Stratford-on-Avon 2,639 Shipston North Stratford-on-Avon 2,846 Shipston South Stratford-on-Avon 2,801 Shottery Stratford-on-Avon 2,358 Snitterfield Stratford-on-Avon 2,758 Studley with Mappleborough Green Stratford-on-Avon 2,849 Studley with Sambourne Stratford-on-Avon 2,864 Tanworth-in-Arden Stratford-on-Avon 2,582 Tiddington Stratford-on-Avon 2,805 Welcombe Stratford-on-Avon 2,309 Welford-on-Avon Stratford-on-Avon 2,587 Wellesbourne East Stratford-on-Avon 2,994 Wellesbourne West Stratford-on-Avon 2,446 Wootton Wawen Stratford-on-Avon 2,886

42. Sutton Coldfield BC 73,172 Sutton Four Oaks Birmingham 18,833 Sutton New Hall Birmingham 17,195 Sutton Trinity Birmingham 19,140 Sutton Vesey Birmingham 18,004

43. Tamworth CC 73,305 Bourne Vale Lichfield 1,762 Fazeley Lichfield 3,458 Little Aston & Stonnall Lichfield 3,977 Mease Valley Lichfield 1,535 Shenstone Lichfield 1,890 Whittington & Streethay Lichfield 3,994 Amington Tamworth 5,756 Belgrave Tamworth 5,666 Bolehall Tamworth 5,680 Castle Tamworth 5,443 Glascote Tamworth 5,519 Mercian Tamworth 5,179 Spital Tamworth 5,372 Stonydelph Tamworth 5,608 Trinity Tamworth 5,843 Wilnecote Tamworth 6,623

44. Telford BC 76,556 Brookside Telford and Wrekin 4,090 Dawley & Aqueduct Telford and Wrekin 6,735 Donnington Telford and Wrekin 4,468 Hadley & Leegomery Telford and Wrekin 6,382 Horsehay & Lightmoor Telford and Wrekin 4,273 Ironbridge Gorge Telford and Wrekin 2,459 Ketley & Overdale Telford and Wrekin 6,789 Madeley & Sutton Hill Telford and Wrekin 7,364 Malinslee & Dawley Bank Telford and Wrekin 4,151 Oakengates & Ketley Bank Telford and Wrekin 5,967 Priorslee Telford and Wrekin 4,506 St. Georges Telford and Wrekin 4,443 Page 124

54 Boundary Commission for England Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

The Nedge Telford and Wrekin 6,536 Woodside Telford and Wrekin 3,915 Wrockwardine Wood & Trench Telford and Wrekin 4,478

45. Walsall and Oscott BC 72,331 Oscott Birmingham 17,483 Birchills Leamore Walsall 9,516 Blakenall Walsall 8,023 Paddock Walsall 9,429 Palfrey Walsall 9,880 Pheasey Park Farm Walsall 8,782 St. Matthew’s Walsall 9,218

46. Warley BC 77,670 St. Thomas’s Dudley 9,781 Abbey Sandwell 7,865 Bristnall Sandwell 8,851 Langley Sandwell 8,958 Old Warley Sandwell 8,965 Oldbury Sandwell 9,188 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPA) Sandwell 1,454 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPB) Sandwell 1,255 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPF) Sandwell 1,678 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPG) Sandwell 1,811 Smethwick Sandwell 9,014 Tividale Sandwell 8,850

47. Warwick and Leamington CC 77,569 Arden Warwick 4,289 Aylesford Warwick 4,618 Bishop’s Tachbrook Warwick 2,012 Brunswick Warwick 4,682 Budbrooke Warwick 4,705 Clarendon Warwick 4,046 Crown Warwick 4,452 Emscote Warwick 4,575 Leam Warwick 3,401 Manor Warwick 4,994 Milverton Warwick 4,407 Myton & Heathcote Warwick 3,804 Newbold Warwick 4,029 Saltisford Warwick 4,968 Stoneleigh & Cubbington Warwick 4,024 Sydenham Warwick 4,119 Whitnash Warwick 6,394 Woodloes Warwick 4,050

48. West Bromwich BC 78,225 Handsworth Wood Birmingham 17,301 Charlemont with Grove Vale Sandwell 9,132 Friar Park Sandwell 8,741 Great Barr with Yew Tree Sandwell 9,438 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGC) Sandwell 1,367 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGD) Sandwell 938 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGE) Sandwell 693 Part of Greets Green and Lyng (polling district GGF) Sandwell 1,173 Hateley Heath Sandwell 9,379 Newton Sandwell 8,544 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPC) Sandwell 527 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPD) Sandwell 1,200 Part of St. Pauls (polling district SPE) Sandwell 1,035 West Bromwich Central Sandwell 8,757

Page 125

Revised proposals for new constituency boundaries in the West Midlands 55 Constituency Ward Local authority Electorate

49. Wolverhampton East and Willenhall BC 77,139 Short Heath Walsall 8,583 Willenhall North Walsall 9,275 Willenhall South Walsall 10,576 Bushbury South and Low Hill Wolverhampton 9,038 Fallings Park Wolverhampton 8,804 Heath Town Wolverhampton 7,435 St. Peter’s Wolverhampton 6,321 Wednesfield North Wolverhampton 8,681 Wednesfield South Wolverhampton 8,426

50. Wolverhampton South and Coseley BC 73,652 Coseley East Dudley 9,607 Sedgley Dudley 9,797 Upper Gornal and Woodsetton Dudley 10,114 Bilston East Wolverhampton 9,442 Bilston North Wolverhampton 8,649 East Park Wolverhampton 8,550 Ettingshall Wolverhampton 8,915 Spring Vale Wolverhampton 8,578

51. Wolverhampton West BC 77,373 Blakenhall Wolverhampton 7,892 Bushbury North Wolverhampton 8,812 Graiseley Wolverhampton 7,635 Merry Hill Wolverhampton 9,118 Oxley Wolverhampton 8,766 Park Wolverhampton 7,415 Penn Wolverhampton 9,759 Tettenhall Regis Wolverhampton 9,137 Tettenhall Wightwick Wolverhampton 8,839

52. Worcester BC 72,912 Arboretum Worcester 4,141 Battenhall Worcester 3,914 Bedwardine Worcester 6,304 Cathedral Worcester 6,826 Claines Worcester 6,397 Gorse Hill Worcester 3,407 Nunnery Worcester 5,590 Rainbow Hill Worcester 3,844 St. Clement Worcester 3,938 St. John Worcester 5,738 St. Peter’s Parish Worcester 4,374 St. Stephen Worcester 4,057 Warndon Worcester 3,683 Warndon Parish North Worcester 3,965 Warndon Parish South Worcester 4,364 Norton and Whittington Wychavon 2,370

53. Wyre Forest CC 75,226 Aggborough & Spennells Wyre Forest 6,559 Areley Kings & Riverside Wyre Forest 6,437 Bewdley & Rock Wyre Forest 6,788 Blakebrook & Habberley South Wyre Forest 6,569 Broadwaters Wyre Forest 6,424 Foley Park & Hoobrook Wyre Forest 6,807 Franche & Habberley North Wyre Forest 7,591 Lickhill Wyre Forest 2,189 Mitton Wyre Forest 7,246 Offmore & Comberton Wyre Forest 7,295 Wribbenhall & Arley Wyre Forest 4,277 Wyre Forest Rural Wyre Forest 7,044 Page 126

56 Boundary Commission for England Agenda Item 11.1

STAFFORDSHIRE MOORLANDS DISTRICT COUNCIL

Notice of Motion

Post-Brexit Regional Policy

Since Britain joined the European Union, Structural Funds have co-financed a vast range of initiatives to promote economic growth, particularly in older industrial areas. With Brexit, that source of funding will disappear. This Council therefore welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to establishing a UK Shared Prosperity Fund as a potential source of new funding.

However, several issues are unresolved that could play a pivotal role in delivering growth and jobs in the places that need this the most. The Industrial Communities Alliance has proposed that:

- The Shared Prosperity Fund’s budget should be set at a level that not only compensates for the loss of EU funding (£1.5bn a year) but also provides additional resources to match the scale of the challenge to deliver growth and prosperity across Britain.

- The Fund should focus on narrowing local and regional differences in economic well-being.

- Local authorities should have a strong hand in the management of the new Fund. Local authorities are most closely attuned to local needs and should take the key decisions about spending priorities.

This Council agrees to write to the Chancellor, and Secretaries of State for Business and Communities, with copies to local MPs, calling on the UK Government to incorporate these proposals into the structure of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank