New electoral arrangements for City Council Final recommendations March 2019 Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at: Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

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

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:

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

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Salford? 2 Our proposals for Salford 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations consultation 7 Final recommendations 7 North-west Salford 9 South-west Salford 12 South-east Salford 15 East Salford 17 Central and South Salford 19 North Salford 21 Conclusions 23 Summary of electoral arrangements 23 What happens next? 25 Equalities 27 Appendices 29 Appendix A 29 Final recommendations for 29 Appendix B 31 Outline map 31 Appendix C 33 Submissions received 33 Appendix D 34

Glossary and abbreviations 34

Introduction Who we are and what we do

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

2 The members of the Commission are:

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

What is an electoral review?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

Why Salford?

7 We are conducting a review of Salford City Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in city council elections varies depending on where you live in Salford. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

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

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

Our proposals for Salford

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

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

11 The boundaries 19 wards should change; one will stay the same.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Salford.

How will the recommendations affect you?

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

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

2

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Salford. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the city. The submissions received during consultation have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 June 2018 Number of councillors decided 26 June 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 3 September 2018 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 6 November 2018 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 14 January 2019 forming final recommendations 26 March 2019 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

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

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

2018 2024 Electorate of Salford 176,853 202,469 Number of councillors 60 60 Average number of electors per 2,948 3,374 councillor

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Salford will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2024. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 13% by 2019.

23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

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

5

Number of councillors 24 Salford City Council currently has 60 councillors. At the start of the review we looked at evidence provided by the Council and concluded that keeping this number the same would ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

25 As Salford City Council elects by thirds (meaning it has elections in three out of every four years) there is a presumption in legislation4 that the Council have a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We will only move away from this pattern of wards should we receive compelling evidence during consultation that an alternative pattern of wards will better reflect our statutory criteria.

26 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 60 councillors. No further comments were received on our proposed number of councillors for the city. We therefore confirm as final our recommendation that Salford City Council should be served by 60 elected members.

Ward boundaries consultation 27 We received 56 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included two detailed city-wide proposals from the Council and the Conservative Group on the Council. Both were based on a pattern of wards to be represented by 60 elected members.

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

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

30 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Salford helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

31 Our draft recommendations were for 20 three-councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while

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

6

reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation 32 We received 30 submissions during the consultation on our draft recommendations. These included a response from the Council, which was mainly supportive of our proposed boundaries, as well as the Conservative Group who proposed a number of amendments. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals in north-west Salford.

33 While the Council broadly supported our draft recommendations, it proposed a number of small amendments. It stated that the draft recommendations provided a good level of electoral equality across Salford, as well as clear and identifiable boundaries that also represented and supported the connections within and between communities across the city. The Conservative Group reiterated their support for the warding pattern it submitted during the previous round of consultation, which was significantly different from our draft recommendations in a number of areas. The Conservative Group argued that their proposal represented a better reflection of communities in some areas and offered better electoral equality across Salford as a whole.

34 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with two minor modifications to the boundaries of Barton & Winton ward, Higher & and & Westwood Park based on the submissions received.

Final recommendations 35 Our final recommendations are for 20 three-councillor wards. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

36 The tables and maps on pages 9–22 detail our final recommendations for each area of Salford. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

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

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

37 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

8

North-west Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors & Ellenbrook 3 3% 3 -4% North 3 -6% 3 -7% Worsley & Westwood Park 3 -4%

Walkden, Boothstown & Ellenbrook and Worsley & Westwood Park 38 We received a significant amount of feedback regarding our draft recommendations in this area. The presumption of three-councillor wards, coupled with the topography of the area, means any change to one ward necessarily has a knock-on effect on the electoral equality of the surrounding wards. As such we considered the proposals for , Walkden South, Boothstown & Ellenbrook and Worsley & Westwood Park, as a whole.

9

39 We received 11 submissions regarding our draft recommendations in Walkden, from the Council, Conservative Group, three city councillors and six local residents.

40 Nine of the submissions were supportive of our Walkden North and Walkden South wards. The respondents generally agreed that the draft recommendations were clear and easy to understand and provided strong boundaries between the wards.

41 The Conservative Group reiterated support for their previous submission, proposing to move the area of Ellenbrook into a ward with Walkden South. The Group argued that Ellenbrook was linked with Walkden South prior to the previous electoral review and that there was a disconnect between the Boothstown and Ellenbrook communities. This argument was supported by a detailed submission from a Walkden South councillor writing in his capacity as a local resident. They also argued that the A580 was a strong boundary, with relatively few residents crossing this to use amenities in Boothstown such as local schools. Moving Ellenbrook would lead to a Walkden South ward with poor electoral equality at 16%. In order to rectify this, they proposed to redraw the boundary between Walkden North and Walkden South around the town centre. The Group argued that including the town centre in one Walkden ward would promote effective and convenient local government.

42 We received a detailed submission from a Walkden South councillor (a long- term resident of Boothstown & Ellenbrook) who argued against the Conservative Group’s submission. The councillor argued that the area of Ellenbrook had changed significantly since the 2003 review, which undermined its historic links with Walkden. The councillor also stated that some residents in Walkden had faced difficulty in securing school places in Ellenbrook, further underlining the argument that Walkden and Ellenbrook are no longer as heavily linked.

43 Lastly, the councillor argued that the Conservative Group’s proposed boundary between Walkden North and Walkden South was not clear, strong or logical. This view was supported by a submission from a local resident.

44 We received 10 submissions objecting to our proposals in Worsley & Westwood Park, from the Conservative Group, three local organisations, three councillors and three local residents. We received support for our proposals here from the Council and one local resident.

45 The respondents opposed to our draft Worsley & Westwood Park ward argued that we had linked two communities – Worsley and Westwood Park – that had very little in common. In addition, they argued that the villages of Roe Green and Beesley Green were historically linked with Worsley and should remain in a ward with Worsley, as opposed to Boothstown and Ellenbrook with which they have very few links. Retaining Roe Green and Beesley Green in a ward with Worsley would result

10

in poor electoral equality in Worsley & Westwood Park at 17% and Boothstown & Ellenbrook at -19%. We were unable to identify an alternative pattern of wards which placed Roe Green and Beesley Green in a Worsley ward and would have strong boundaries and good electoral equality. We are therefore retaining this area in Boothstown & Ellenbrook ward.

46 We considered the proposal from the Conservative Group for north-west Salford very carefully against our draft recommendations. While we recognise that our proposed ward of Worsley & Westwood Park would unite two communities that have limited links, we do not feel that sufficient evidence has been provided to move away from the draft recommendations here or in the surrounding wards, particularly in Walkden North and Walkden South where we have received evidence in support for our proposals. We would rather unite distinct communities in the same ward than divide them in order to balance our statutory criteria.

47 We remain of the opinion that our draft recommendations offer the best balance of our statutory criteria for Walkden North, Walkden South, Boothstown & Ellenbrook and Worsley & Westwood Park.

48 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Walkden North, Walkden South and Boothstown & Ellenbrook wards as final. We are modifying the southern boundary of Worsley & Westwood Park slightly to follow Parrin Lane, as opposed to the M602. This is discussed further in paragraph 56. All wards will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Little Hulton 49 We received support for our Little Hulton ward from the Council and a councillor for Walkden South. The Conservative Group reiterated their proposal submitted at the previous stage of the review but agreed that the area around Harrop Street should be included in Little Hulton.

50 We are not persuaded to move away from our draft recommendations in this area and therefore confirm our draft Little Hulton ward as final. Little Hulton ward will have good electoral equality by 2024.

11

South-west Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Barton & Winton 3 2% & Lower Irlam 3 0% Higher Irlam & Peel Green 3 0%

Cadishead & Lower Irlam and Higher Irlam & Peel Green 51 We received three submissions from local residents regarding our draft recommendations in Cadishead & Lower Irlam and Higher Irlam & Peel Green wards, as well as responses from the Council and Conservative Group.

52 Two of the local residents objected to joining Higher Irlam in a ward with Peel Green, arguing that it was counterintuitive to pair these areas and that they should remain separate. Moving the Peel Green area into a separate ward would result in poor electoral equality in Higher Irlam, at -23%. We are therefore not recommending this proposal. One of the local residents objected to the proposal to build a housing estate near Irlam train station; however, this falls outside the scope of the Commission’s electoral review.

12

53 The Council supported our draft recommendations for both wards. The Conservative Group supported our draft Cadishead & Lower Irlam ward but maintained support for their alternative proposal to use the ship canal as the eastern boundary for Higher Irlam & Peel Green ward. The Group argued that it was a stronger natural boundary than running it to the rear of houses on Stanley Road. Although we recognise that the Conservative scheme offers good electoral equality, to use the ship canal as a boundary could create a bottleneck in our proposed Barton & Winton ward. On balance, we do not feel that enough further evidence has been provided for us to move away from our draft recommendations in this area.

54 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Cadishead & Lower Irlam as final. We have made one minor modification to the boundary between Higher Irlam & Peel Green and Barton & Winton, discussed in further detail in paragraph 57.

Barton & Winton 55 Our Barton & Winton ward is based predominantly on our draft recommendations, with two minor modifications. In addition to the responses from the Council and Conservative Group, we received three submissions from two local organisations and a local resident regarding Barton & Winton.

56 The Council, Westwood Park Tenants’ & Residents’ Association and a local resident argued that Parrin Lane rather than the M602 is the natural north-eastern boundary of Barton & Winton ward. The respondents stated that the M602 was not a natural boundary here and using it would split a cohesive community. The Council stated that the local post office and library were focal points for community meetings and events that are attended by electors living south of Parrin Lane. They also argued that connections across the motorway have continued since it was built, with a tunnel between Weymouth Road and Trevor Road to enable residents to continue to use local schools and other amenities. The Conservative Group did not support the proposal to use Parrin Lane as the boundary here, arguing that, although there are links between electors here and those south of the M602, this area would be better suited in a ward to the north. On balance, we are persuaded by the evidence received to include electors south of Parrin Lane in Barton & Winton ward to better reflect community identities and interests.

57 We received a submission from another local organisation that represents electors in Langland Drive, requesting that electors here be included in Barton & Winton ward as opposed to Higher Irlam & Peel Green, as proposed under our draft recommendations. The respondent argued that residents here feel much more connected to Barton & Winton ward than Peel Green. We have therefore modified our draft recommendations to include Langland Drive in Barton & Winton ward.

58 As discussed in paragraph 53, we are not adopting the Conservative Group’s proposal to use the ship canal as the boundary between Barton & Winton and Higher

13

Irlam & Peel Green wards. Barton & Winton ward will have good electoral equality by 2024.

14

South-east Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Blackfriars & Trinity 3 4% Ordsall 3 1% Quays 3 5%

Blackfriars & Trinity 59 We received two submissions regarding our draft recommendations for Blackfriars & Trinity ward, from the Council and a local resident.

60 The local resident argued that Greengate and New Bridge Street should be part of City Council rather than Salford City Council. The scope of this electoral review is limited to redrawing the ward boundaries within the area covered by Salford City Council and we are therefore not able to consider changes to the external boundaries of the authority.

61 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Blackfriars & Trinity ward as final, as supported by the Council. Blackfriars & Trinity will have good electoral equality by 2024.

15

Ordsall and Quays 62 We received four submissions regarding our proposed Quays and Ordsall wards, from the Council, the Conservative Group and two local residents.

63 The Council and a local resident strongly supported our proposed boundaries for Quays ward. The local resident argued that electors living in Salford Quays represent a distinct community, with many of the blocks of flats here having separate residents’ groups. The respondent also argued that electors here would be better represented by dedicated councillors who would not have to split their time between the Quays and Ordsall communities.

64 The Conservative Group opposed our draft recommendations for Quays ward, instead arguing that their proposals submitted at the previous round of consultation provided a better balance of our statutory criteria. It argued that the shape of our draft Quays ward was illogical and that in an area of rapid growth such as Salford Quays, communities should be encouraged to grow together.

65 We visited this area on our tour of Salford and, although the proposed ward has an unorthodox shape, we remain of the opinion that the proposal to include developments between Ordsall Lane and the ship canal in a newly created Quays ward is sound. Many of the developments along this stretch of road are in their early stages and we consider it likely that electors moving into these properties will have a greater sense of community identity with a wider Quays ward based around MediaCityUK and Salford Quays than with the more established communities of Ordsall.

66 We received a submission from a local resident who argued that electors west of Road, in the Howard Street area, should be considered part of the Quays ward as they are likely to use local amenities located around MediaCityUK. To include electors here in Quays ward would result in poor electoral equality for Quays at 11%. In addition, we visited this area on tour and considered that electors here would be better placed in an Ordsall ward rather than Quays. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

67 We confirm our draft Quays and Ordsall wards as final. Both will have good electoral equality by 2024.

16

East Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Broughton 3 -7% Kersal & Broughton Park 3 -4%

Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park 68 Our draft recommendations here were based on the Conservative Group proposal with a minor amendment to include Mandley Park Avenue in Kersal & Broughton Park ward.

17

69 The Council proposed an alternative boundary between the two wards, which would run along Dudley Street, before turning north onto Great Cheetham Street East. Following this, the boundary would run west along Bristol Street, then north along Leicester Road to the junction with Northumberland Street, meeting the existing ward boundary. It would follow the existing ward boundary west to the junction with Bury New Road, where it would turn south and then west along Knoll Street. The boundary would then turn north along Great Clowes Street before again meeting the existing ward boundary and the . The Council argued that this is a clearer and more distinct boundary and is locally recognised. It also argued that Mandley Park is a space that unites rather than physically divides the community here.

70 The Conservative Group submission supported the names of our wards and raised no objection to our proposed ward boundaries.

71 On balance, we do not consider that the Council’s proposal represents a better overall boundary between the two wards than that which we proposed in our draft recommendations. Although we recognise that Northumberland Street would work as a clear boundary between the two wards, we feel that electors north of Dudley Street up to the authority boundary at Orient Street should be in Broughton ward both to ensure communities are not divided and to ensure a clear ward boundary. We are of the view that the alternative proposal from the Council would effectively create a bottleneck in the ward boundary that is neither clear nor identifiable. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Broughton and Kersal & Broughton Park wards as final. Both will have good electoral equality by 2024.

18

Central and South Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors Claremont 3 5% Eccles 3 8% Pendleton & Charlestown 3 3% Weaste & Seedley 3 4%

Claremont and Weaste & Seedley 72 We received one submission that supported our draft recommendations for these wards, from the Council. We are therefore not recommending any changes to our draft proposals here. Claremont and Weaste & Seedley wards will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Eccles 73 The Council supported our proposals for Eccles, with the Conservative Group pleased that we had united the entirety of Eccles High Street within one ward. We received a submission from a local resident who suggested that Stableford Avenue, Broad Oak Park and the surrounding roads north of Monton Green should be included in our Worsley & Westwood Park ward. The respondent did not supply any evidence to support this. While this proposal would maintain good electoral equality in Eccles (6%) and Worsley & Westwood Park (-2%), electors here would be separated from the rest of Worsley & Westwood Park by Folly Brook and Worsley

19

Golf Club. On balance, we do not feel that enough evidence has been supplied to support this proposal. We therefore confirm our draft Eccles ward as final.

74 Eccles ward will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Pendleton & Charlestown 75 We received support for our draft Pendleton & Charlestown ward from the Council.

76 The Conservative Group were opposed to our draft recommendations here. In particular, they were concerned that electors living between Eccles New Road, the M602 and Langworthy Road would be isolated by placing them in a Pendleton & Charlestown ward. They suggested that the M602 would be a more suitable boundary, so we visited this area on our tour of Salford to better inform our decision. We also requested feedback in our draft recommendations report from residents living either side of Eccles New Road and in the developments around Eric Street and Peel Cross Road as to whether they identify with Pendleton & Charlestown, and whether Eccles New Road would be an effective boundary.

77 We did not receive any other submissions regarding our draft Pendleton & Charlestown ward. Although we accept that the M602 is a strong boundary here, there is footbridge access over the motorway. Additionally, including electors here in a ward south of the motorway would result in electoral variances of 7% in Ordsall ward, 10% in Weaste & Seedley and 11% in Quays ward. We are not persuaded that enough evidence has been received to justify these variances and have concluded that our draft recommendations provided clear and identifiable boundaries.

78 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations here as final. Pendleton & Charlestown will have good electoral equality by 2024.

20

North Salford

Number of Ward name Variance 2024 councillors & Clifton 3 -3% Swinton & Wardley 3 0% Swinton Park 3 1%

Swinton & Wardley and Swinton Park 79 We received three submissions regarding our draft recommendations here, from the Council, the Conservative Group and a local resident.

80 The local resident objected to the merging of ward names in the Swinton area. The proposed ward names were supported by both the Council and the Conservative Group. We remain confident that the proposed ward names are a good reflection of the communities contained in our proposed wards.

21

81 The Conservative Group commented that we had not included Swinton Park Road in our draft Swinton Park ward; however, we felt that the East Road provided a stronger boundary between the two wards.

82 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Swinton Park and Swinton & Wardley wards as final. Both will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Pendlebury & Clifton 83 The Council and Conservative Group were both supportive of our draft recommendations in Pendlebury & Clifton and as such we are not recommending any changes.

84 Pendlebury & Clifton ward will have good electoral equality by 2024.

22

Conclusions 85 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Salford, referencing the 2018 and 2024 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2018 2024 Number of councillors 60 60 Number of electoral wards 20 20 Average number of electors per councillor 2,948 3,374 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 7 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 4 0 from the average

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

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

23

24

What happens next? 44 We have now completed our review of Salford. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2020.

25

26

Equalities 45 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

27

28

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Salford City Council Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Barton & Winton 3 10,273 3,424 16% 10,375 3,458 2% Blackfriars & 2 3 5,841 1,947 -34% 10,493 3,498 4% Trinity Boothstown & 3 3 9,744 3,248 10% 10,397 3,466 3% Ellenbrook 4 Broughton 3 9,255 3,085 5% 9,460 3,153 -7% Cadishead & 5 3 9,595 3,198 9% 10,144 3,381 0% Lower Irlam 6 Claremont 3 9,953 3,318 13% 10,610 3,537 5%

7 Eccles 3 10,653 3,551 20% 10,949 3,650 8% Higher Irlam & 8 3 9,667 3,222 9% 10,088 3,363 0% Peel Green Kersal & 9 3 9,454 3,151 7% 9,753 3,251 -4% Broughton Park 10 Little Hulton 3 9,123 3,041 3% 9,680 3,227 -4%

11 Ordsall 3 5,615 1,872 -37% 10,211 3,404 1%

12 Pendlebury & 3 8,876 2,959 0% 9,794 3,265 -3% Clifton

29

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Pendleton & 13 3 8,788 2,929 -1% 10,473 3,491 3% Charlestown 14 Quays 3 3,704 1,235 -58% 10,639 3,546 5%

15 Swinton & Wardley 3 9,588 3,196 8% 10,177 3,359 0%

16 Swinton Park 3 9,594 3,198 8% 10,081 3,394 1%

17 Walkden North 3 9,078 3,026 3% 9,551 3,184 -6%

18 Walkden South 3 8,197 2,732 -7% 9,368 3,123 -7%

19 Weaste & Seedley 3 10,677 3,559 21% 10,521 3,507 4% Worsley & 20 3 9,178 3,059 4% 9,705 3,235 -4% Westwood Park Totals 60 176,853 – – 202,469 – –

Averages – – 2,948 – – 3,374 –

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

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

30

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Barton & Winton 2 Blackfriars & Trinity 3 Boothstown & Ellenbrook 4 Broughton 5 Cadishead & Lower Irlam 6 Claremont 7 Eccles 8 Higher Irlam & Peel Green 9 Kersal & Broughton Park 10 Little Hulton 11 Ordsall 12 Pendlebury & Clifton

31

13 Pendleton & Charlestown 14 Quays 15 Swinton & Wardley 16 Swinton Park 17 Walkden North 18 Walkden South 19 Weaste & Seedley 20 Worsley & Westwood Park

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

32

Appendix C Submissions received

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

Local Authority

• Salford City Council

Political Groups

• Salford City Council Conservative Group

Councillors

• Councillor C. Clarkson (Salford City Council) • Councillor R. Critchley (Salford City Council) • Councillor L. Edwards (Salford City Council) • Councillors K. & R. Garrido (Salford City Council)

Local Organisations

• Friends of Roe Green • Langdale & Boscombe Community Group • Worsley Village Community Association • Westwood Park Tenants’ & Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 20 local residents

33

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35

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