Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 139 LOCAL GOVERNiiiUNT . BOUNDARY . COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND RETORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M 2Unkin,QC. MEMBERS The Countess Of Albeffarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chiaholn. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CB£. Mr P B PW To the Ht lion Roy Jenkins, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED. ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD IN THS COUNTY OF STAFFORDSHIRE 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for Ltogland, having carried out ' i our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Stafford in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 3 June 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Stafford Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the Staffordshire County Council, Parish Councils and Parish Meetings in the district, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3. Stafford Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of represen- tation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in .Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed nurob,:r of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with loial interests, We therefore asked that th'ey should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. In accordance with section 7(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council have opted for whole council elections. 5. On 30 October 197^ the Stafford Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. The Council proposed to divide the area of the district into 29 wards each returning 1t 2 or 3 councillors to form a council of 59 members. 6. Following the publication of the Borough Council of their draft scheme, we received a letter from Stone Rural Parish Council objecting to the Borough Council's proposal to group the Moddershall ward of the parish with the parish of Fulford for district electoral purposes. Fulford Parish Council wrote to suggest changes in the name and area of the proposed Keirheath ward. There were also comments from a member of the public suggesting that the proposed new wards represented no improvement on the existing system. 7. The Borough Council sent us copies of written comments they had received from bodies or persons before or after publication of the scheme. 8. We studied the draft scheme submitted by the Council, together with the comments which had been made. \/e noted that in terms of equality of representation the scheme showed several uneven patches. V:e considered whether there were modifi- cations which could be made to secure a more even standard. 9- In order to achieve a more even standard of representation between1' the Council's proposed Stone and V/alton district wards, which make up the successor parish of Gtone, we decided that the 3 member Stone ward should be split. The two resulting district wards Would be based on the Stonefield and Christchurch and the St Michaels wards of the parish of Stone with "each ward returning two district councillors* 10, We considered the suggestion the Council had received from a district councillor concerning the proposed Eccleshall and Swynnerton.wards and decided that the arrangements would be improved by the transfer of the Cotes ward of the parish of Eccleshall from the proposed Eccleshall ward to the proposed Swynnerton ward. It was our intention to reduce the number of councillors assigned to the Eccleshall ward from three to two and to allocate an additional member to the proposed Swynnerton ward but through an oversight this adjustment was not incorporated in our draft proposals. 11, We noted that all the names proposed by the Borough Council appealed acceptable locally apart from the proposed Meirheath ward. We decided to adopt a suggestion that this ward should be re-named "Fulford". 12, Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 9 to 11 above and to some minor alterations recommended by the Ordnance Survey in the interests of better boundaries, we decided that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements for the borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 13, On 10 June 1975 we issued our draft proposals and thene were sent to all who hud received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals and the accompanying maps, which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by -public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 8 August 1975. 1^. Stafford Borough Council informed us that they accepted the draft proposals but drew our attention to some of the representations sent to us from other sources. 15« Comments were received which supported the proposal to include the Cotes ward of the parish of Eccleshall in the proposed Swynnerton ward but suggested that the number of councillors assigned to the Swynnerton ward should be increased to three and that the number assigned to the Eccleshall ward should be reduced to two (see paragraph 10 above). 16. Opposition was received to the inclusion of the Hoddershall ward of the parish of Stone Kural in the proposed Fulford ward. 17. It was suggested that the proposed l^aton ward should be named "Church Saton" and that the proposed Bridgeford ward should be named "Seighford". 18. We received proposals to modify the boundaries of the wards proposed in the Stafford town area. 19- Comments were also received suggesting that the proposed Gnossall ward should be represented by three councillors. 20. Baswich Parish Council wrote to assert that the correct name of the Parish is "Berkswich". 21. In view of these comments, we decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with section 6^(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request, you appointed Mr P M Vine as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 22. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting in the Riverside Kecreation Centre South Walls Stafford on 16 September 1975* A copy (without enclosures) of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 2?. In the light of the discussion at the meeting and of his inspection of those areas concerned the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the draft proposals be modified so that the Swynnerton district ward be confined to the parish of Swynnerton and return two members, and that the Eccleshall district ward should comprise the whole of the parish of Eccleshall including the Cotes ward of the parish, the parish of Standon and the parish of Chebsey and return three members. He also recommended that the Oulton district ward should comprise the whole of the parish of Stone Rural except for the Rough Close area and return one member, and that the Fulford district ward should comprise the parish of Fulford plus the Rough Close area (which the District Council have since established as a ward of the parish of Stone Rural) and return three members. In addition he recommended that the proposed Eaton weird should be renamed Church Eaton and that the proposed Bridgeford ward shpuld be renamed Seighford. 2*t, Standon Parish Council were not present at the meeting but have written i to us since in support of the Assistant Commissioner's proposals for their parish. 25* We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's Report. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, -subject to these amendments, we decided that our draft proposals should be confirmed as our final proposals, 26, Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and on the attached maps. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. The boundaries of the new. wards are defined on the maps. PUBLICnTION 27. In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Stafford Borough Council and will be available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments.