Newcastle-under-Lyme Conservatives Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission consultation on warding arrangements for the electoral review of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme

December 2016

SUMMARY

Having considered carefully the data provided by the Local Government Boundary Commission for and the Commission’s guidance on the proposal of warding patterns, we are minded to propose a pattern of 18 wards for the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, being a mixture of two and three seat wards. In line with the Council’s recent resolution on size and the Commission’s subsequent recommendation, our proposal is for a 44-seat Council.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

We believe that our proposal meets each of the Commission’s three criteria of electoral equality; community ties; and convenient and effective local government.

We have considered and rejected in some areas a pattern that would include single- seat wards. This is because the Council has at present a mixture of two- and three-seat wards, and we have taken the view that it is not desirable for some electors to be represented by a single member, while others have three. Moreover, having considered it, we are firmly of the view that is very difficult to identify strong, cohesive wards composed of 2,130 electors, which is the quota for a single seat in a Newcastle Borough Council of 44 members total. We believe that this would almost never be appropriate in the urban area, and only possibly desirable for a rural village or group of villages.

We have also considered and rejected a uniform pattern of two-seat wards. While we consider that such a scheme is possible, the results from our experimentation suggested that it is less effective, and a uniform 2-seat pattern would reflect community interests less well than a mixture, where we have the flexibility to vary ward sizes.

In forming our proposals, we have considered the Borough in three parts.

Firstly, the Parish of being the largest, and most urban parish in the Borough, forms a single, strong unit of community, and we have sought not to create any ward that crosses the boundary of the Town Council area. We believe that this would meet the approval of local people.

Secondly, we have taken as a unit the remaining parished area of the Borough. These parishes form a continuous area and we believe that it would be more helpful to construct wards by linking together parishes, than it would to construct wards that include parts of parished areas, and parts of unparished urban Newcastle.

2 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES There are three exceptions. We have chosen to include the Apedale Community Park (unparished) with an Audley ward (parished) because it is currently included with the Halmerend Ward (where it is the only part of that ward that is not within the area of a parish). There are zero electors living in this area. Alternative options exist for it that are neutral with respect to community and electoral equality, and we do not have strong views.

There is an area immediately to the east of Parish, that is currently in Keele Ward but outside of the Parish. Again, there are zero electors in this area. Part of this land has, however, been set aside for future development by , and it would therefore make sense to include the area – or at least that extent of it that is developed – within whatever ward contains Keele.

We have chosen to include Knutton (unparished) in a Silverdale ward that is otherwise composed of the area of Silverdale Parish. The present Knutton and Silverdale Ward is an example of a hybrid of parished and unparished areas where there are actually electors living in the unparished part, and we have taken the view that it is preferable to bring Knutton in, rather than leave it out. In this instance, we do have a strong view, which is that the alternatives are weaker than what we have proposed, which we detail below.

Thirdly, in drawing up our proposals we have considered the unparished part of the Borough, which is urban and suburban in character, and which, again, forms a single continuous area. In some areas, we have considered that existing ward boundaries are good evidence of community of interest: we have retained them where possible, but have altered an existing boundary where we feel that it is misplaced or poorly- conceived. It has also been necessary to create new boundaries, where electoral equality demands it.

CROSS HEATH WARD (2 SEATS)

We considered whether it is possible for any of the existing Borough wards to be retained within the scheme for a new Council. Cross Heath is one such ward, that would be viable as a two-seater, however its variance from electoral quota is forecast narrowly to exceed 10% by 2022.

For this reason, we propose a Cross Heath ward composed principally of polling districts G0001, G0002, G0003, and G0005. We would transfer the G0004 polling district (containing Sainsbury’s supermarket, Newcastle College, and electors of the Ashfields estate) to a Town ward.

The eastern boundary of the current Cross Heath Ward makes what we consider an irregular detour at the junction of Hassam Parade and Hollinshead Avenue. The effect is to include Hassam Parade even numbers 108 to 114, but then to exclude numbers 106 down to 2. Boundaries running behind properties on a street are acceptable, as

3 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES are boundaries that run down the centre of a road, but we object to mixing the two on the same street. We therefore propose to realign the boundary here, so that it runs down the centre of Hassam Parade for its entire length. This entails the transfer of an estimated 109 electors from polling districts C0002 and C0003 into the Cross Heath Ward.

Having moved the boundary along Hassam Parade, we have also found it prudent to realign it along Dimsdale Parade West. We propose that the boundary should run along the centre of Dimsdale Parade West, from its junction with Hassam Parade to its junction with the A34 Road. This entails the inclusion of an estimated 88 voters from the A0003 polling district.

MAY BANK WARD (3 SEATS)

We propose a May Bank seat composed of the current May Bank Ward, plus polling district C0005, which is currently in the Wolstanton Ward. This polling district is in two parts. To the South of Grange Lane, it includes a self-contained estate of homes off Moreton Parade. This is immediately adjacent to the existing May Bank ward boundary.

Secondly, the polling district includes Grange Lane itself, and a large, new estate of houses off Great Row View. This neighbourhood is quite separate from the rest of Wolstanton, having been constructed more recently. It is physically separate from Wolstanton, with no access for motor vehicles between the two. The Great Row View estate is fenced off for much of its perimeter. Its residents therefore face towards May Bank, and away from Wolstanton itself.

In our view it is therefore an appropriate inclusion in a May Bank ward.

WOLSTANTON AND PORTHILL WARD (3 SEATS)

Taking into account the areas of what is now Wolstanton Ward that have been transferred out to Cross Heath and May Bank, we find that the core of Wolstanton, plus the area of the Porthill Ward combine to form a single, cohesive unit of correct numbers for a three-seat ward.

The current boundary between Porthill and Wolstanton is a thing of great ingenuity, but we are not confident that it is wholly sound. For example, there is a longstanding public right of way, a footpath, that commences at the northeast end of Pitgreen Lane, and passes through the Borough boundary at the A500. This footpath is the current boundary, and it notoriously severs four homes at the foot of St Edmund’s Avenue (which at that end is a cul-de-sac) from the rest of the street. Numbers 73 to 79 St Edmund’s Avenue are therefore in Wolstanton Ward today, but only accessible via a big detour through Porthill Ward.

4 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES From Pitgreen Lane heading West, the current boundary passes behind rows of terraces, rather than down the centre of a street, which is perfectly acceptable, but it is unclear to us why, other than for historical reasons or for purposes of electoral equality, the line is drawn where it is drawn. It has a kink in it that ensures both properties on George Street are placed in Porthill rather than Wolstanton. But those homes are of similar stock to the adjacent homes on Keeling Street (odds 75 to 89) and a more natural, straight line boundary would surely have sufficed.

Our view is that given the challenges of dividing this area, producing a clear boundary with clear reasoning, and our stated reluctance to form single-seat wards, the more sensible option is to unite the area. The boundary in the ground is invisible, and we believe that Wolstanton and Porthill can form a practical unit together.

At the north boundary of Porthill, we propose a small adjustment to the boundary at Second Avenue. The current boundary makes an irregular approach to bisecting Second Avenue: its shape is such that Porthill residents living on Haven Grove, Beaconsfield and St Lucy’s Drive have to pass through a slice of Bradwell Ward in order to reach the mouth of their estate at Second Avenue. The boundary at this location makes limited sense, and we propose an amendment, such that all properties with an address on Second Avenue fall within the Wolstanton and Porthill Ward. This means a transfer of an estimated 60 electors out of polling district A0002.

BRADWELL WARD (2 SEATS)

We propose a Bradwell Ward of two seats, composed of the existing Bradwell ward, less the fractions of Second Avenue and Dimsdale Parade West that we have included with Wolstanton and Porthill, and Cross Heath, respectively.

The small changes we have made make the southern border of our proposed ward clearer and stronger, and we note that the other three sides of the Bradwell ward already have very strong boundaries. To the West, we would be very reluctant to approve of a ward that crossed the A34 Talke Road, for example. To the East, Bradwell is bounded by the Borough boundary. And to the North, Bradwell meets Kidsgrove Parish, which is a definitive boundary, not least because its crossing point is the busy A34/A500 Talke junction.

CRACKLEY AND CHESTERTON WARD (2 SEATS) CHESTERTON AND HOLDITCH WARD (2 SEATS)

Taken together, the current Borough wards of Chesterton and Holditch have an entitlement of nearly exactly four seats on the new council. Our view is that taken together, this area has community of interest, with a common heritage and a well- defined geographical extent.

5 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES By analogy with the current Silverdale seats, we have chosen, in dividing this ‘Greater Chesterton’ area into two, to give each ward a ‘Chesterton’ name. Alternatives exist, as do alternatives for dividing the area that may be equally sensible.

Our choice, however, is to split polling district E0004, including with the northern, Crackley, seat the whole of the Birch House Road estate, and placing the south and west of the polling district in the Chesterton and Holditch Ward.

Chesterton and Holditch is therefore composed of the whole of the current Holditch ward, plus polling district E0005 and part of E0004.

Crackley and Chesterton is composed of polling districts E0001, E0002, E0003, and part of E0004, all drawn from the existing Chesterton Ward.

TOWN WARD (2 SEATS)

We propose a Town Ward composed of the existing Town Ward, plus polling district G0005 and part of polling district I0002.

The inclusion of G0005 regularises the boundary at the north-west of Town Ward: it follows the disused railway line all the way from Brampton Sidings to the boundary with Knutton.

The area of I0002 that we propose to include in the Town Ward is the whole of that polling district, except for: homes on Keele Road, and cul-de-sacs that empty onto Keele Road; and a small number of properties on Orme Road (odd numbers 17 to 51). The total number of electors to be included in Town we estimate at 949.

The desired consequence is that the Higherland, and all roads leading directly off it, are transferred from Thistleberry into the Town Ward. This is so to the North (Drayton Street) and to the South (Seabridge Road) of the Higherland. We believe that this is a logical choice, and superior to the arbitrary boundary that currently exists between the Town and Thistleberry wards (for example, at Stanier Street and John O’Gaunt’s Road, where the boundary now runs – we would suggest that the boundary ought at least to run along Silverdale Road).

Transferring the Higherland to Town from Thistleberry also assists in forming a numerically viable Thistleberry Ward.

THISTLEBERRY WARD (2 SEATS)

We propose a two-seat Thistleberry Ward, composed of the existing Thistleberry ward, excluding that part of polling district I0002 that we have added to Town Ward..

We believe that the existing Thistleberry ward is well-constructed, and with the reasoned transfer of Higherland electors to the Town Ward, it is also within an

6 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES acceptable electoral variance. The new eastern boundary is therefore right in front of the Thistleberry pub, a local landmark at the junction where Keele Road, Thistleberry Avenue, and the Higherland meet. Mayfield Avenue and Deneside are off Keele Road, and are therefore included in the Thistleberry ward.

A new boundary is also created at the point where Orme Road meets St Paul's Road and Drayton Street. Everything east of this confluence is included in the Town ward, and the boundary runs between 17 Orme Road and 2 Drayton Street. Everything to the Northwest is included in the Thistleberry Ward.

WESTLANDS AND LYME VALLEY WARD (3 SEATS) CLAYTON AND WESTBURY PARK WARD (3 SEATS)

We propose a Westlands and Lyme Valley Ward, composed of the whole of the present Westlands Ward, plus polling district L0001 from the Clayton Ward.

We propose a Clayton and Westbury Park Ward, composed of the whole of the current Seabridge Ward, plus polling districts L0002 and L0003 from the Clayton Ward.

These proposed wards unite communities either side of the A519 Clayton Road, which has previously marked the boundary of the Clayton Ward for much of its length.

We believe that the ‘Clayton’ community identity has never been confined to the area east of Clayton Road. It extends at least as far west as Earls Drive and Langdale Road, in the Westlands Ward, and the whole of the Westbury Road estate in the Seabridge Ward.

There is, moreover, more that unites electors on either side of Clayton Road than separates them. Local primary schools (Friarswood, Langdale, Our Lady and St Werburgh’s) are all west of the line, but the local secondary school (Clayton Hall) is to the east. A large number of children are crossing the Clayton Road each day to school.

The sports facilities off Stafford Avenue and Buckmaster Avenue serve the wider area, and the Clayton Road playing field, a valuable local green space, is to the west of Clayton Road, but enjoyed by residents from both sides. The shops to the east of Clayton Road, including the local co-op are colloquially known as the ‘Abbots Way shops’, despite being on the opposite side of the road.

Lastly, the roundabout at the junction of Clayton Road, Westbury Road, and Northwood lane, mean that a clear majority of residents of L0003 are much more closely linked with residents in polling district K0003 opposite, than they are with the residents of L0001.

7 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES We have reasoned, therefore, that a North/South division of the present Clayton Ward is appropriate. Our proposal keeps the boundary of the L0001 polling district as it is now, on the basis that like Dartmouth Avenue, electors on both sides of the Stafford Avenue should be included.

Because the lion’s share of the current Clayton Ward is included with the southern of the two wards, we propose the name ‘Clayton and Westbury Park’. We considered but rejected ‘Clayton and Seabridge’ on the basis that much of what is now Seabridge Ward isn’t Seabridge, and as a consequence of previous boundary changes, a significant chunk of the community that might identify itself as Seabridge is within the Westlands Ward. As a symptom of this, there exists as you travel West along Seabridge Lane, a sign erected that reads ‘Seabridge’ marking roughly where the community might be said to begin. Unfortunately, where it is placed (near to the mouth of Stockwood Road), every property on the right hand side is in Westlands Ward, and at the nearby junction of Seabridge Lane and Harrowby Drive, everything is Westlands. As a marker, the sign would now be more appropriate if it were rotated 180 degrees.

Because L0001 leads directly onto, and overlooks the Lyme Valley Park, we propose that the new ward including it is named ‘Westlands and Lyme Valley’.

We considered but rejected patterns that would have created three two-seat wards covering this area south of urban Newcastle, as less successful. We are mindful that there are alternatives in dividing the area into two, but we believe that all possible solutions creating smaller wards are likely to be less satisfactory.

SILVERDALE AND KNUTTON WARD (3 SEATS)

We propose a Silverdale and Knutton Ward of three seats, composed of the Silverdale and Parksite, and Knutton and Silverdale Wards.

This is the only ward that we propose combining electors from a parished area (Silverdale) with those of a non-parished area (Knutton polling districts N0001 and N0002). We believe that local circumstances are such that Knutton and Silverdale villages are so closely linked, that the only logical choice is to combine the two.

The present Knutton and Silverdale Ward boundary splits Silverdale village eccentrically in two, running between 111 and 115 Church Street before passing between the Working Mens’ Club and the Vine Inn on the High Street and skirting the rear of properties on Mill Street and Silverdale Cemetery. One suspects that electoral equality was the principal driver of this boundary. A combined Silverdale and Knutton Ward is, in our view, much preferable to any subdivision of the area, and also superior to any scheme that would add in other communities.

8 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES WARD (3 SEATS)

We propose an Audley Rural Ward of three seats, including the whole of the Audley Rural Parish, with the exception of , polling district R0003.

At present, Audley Parish is divided between Audley and Ward, and Halmerend Ward. The creation of the latter was controversial at the time, and having considered various options, we are of the view that the current Halmerend Ward is not sustainable in any configuration.

We accept that an Audley ward coterminous with the Parish would be electorally well within tolerance. We have, however, chosen to link the Scot Hay polling district with Keele, for reasons that we will explain.

Also considered and rejected was a pattern of three single-seat wards covering this Parish. Firstly, the Parish’s wards do not meet our requirements for size, and so new boundaries would have to be created, and it is not clear to us that there is a satisfactory solution. Secondly, we consider that a pattern of two- and three-seat wards for the whole borough is preferable. If there was any place for single seat wards, however, it would be here.

We propose the name ‘Audley Rural Ward’ in recognition that the ward is closely aligned with the Parish of the same name.

KEELE AND WHITMORE WARD (2 SEATS)

We consider Keele to be the most difficult area under review. The Commission will be aware that since the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration, university wards have varied wildly in their count of registered electors. In many cases, this variance has itself been the trigger for an electoral review.

We cannot escape from acknowledging that our proposal produces a result that as of today (2016) is very difficult to justify in terms of electoral equality. Our proposal is as follows.

We propose a Keele and Whitmore Ward of two seats, composed of the current Keele Ward, the Parish of Whitmore, and polling district R0003 from the Audley Rural Parish, which is immediately adjacent to Keele Parish.

This proposal, using today’s figures, is 30 per cent variant from electoral quota. Other options considered, including a single-seat Keele ward, were substantially worse, or involved attaching Keele village and university campus (for such is the content of the present Keele Ward) to another part of the borough, with poor community links, for no greater purpose than achieving electoral equality.

9 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES We are compelled to address the situation as it is, and not as it appears to be on paper, however. The fact is that there are fully 1,500 electors ‘missing’ from the Keele register, who will with great certainty be present in May 2018, when the new Council is elected. The University and Borough Council have (belatedly) agreed to share data to secure the registration of students who are entitled to be registered. This is important for more than electoral purposes, and we can be more than confident that it will happen.

In anticipation of a spike in voter registrations, we are therefore very reluctant to propose any ward pattern whereby the new Council will have a gross electoral inequality from day one. At worst, it is possible that a further electoral review could be triggered immediately once the new Council sits.

Our proposal is therefore a difficult compromise, and reflects that with an extra 1,500 electors, the true variance in 2018 for our ward would be just 5% above quota. This proposal, possibly with the exception of the Scot Hay polling district, is what we would have put forward in the case that the Keele electors were in place today. We believe that it is the right proposal and one that fits elegantly with neighbouring proposals in our pattern. Alternatives were considered but all with very undesirable knock-on consequences.

Keele and Whitmore are neighbouring parishes, with the villages of Whitmore and Keele directly linked by Three Mile Lane. Keele University campus is a community sui generis within the Borough, and belongs properly to the village of Keele through the Sneyd estate on which it sits.

LOGGERHEADS WARD (2 SEATS)

We propose a Loggerheads Ward of two seats, composed of the parishes of Loggerheads, Maer, and Chapel and Hill Chorlton.

These parishes are grouped together in the South of the Borough, and are currently combined in the Loggerheads and Whitmore Ward. With the removal of Whitmore, they are of correct size for a two-seat ward, with no solution existing for single seats that would not split the Parish of Loggerheads.

MADELEY AND WARD (2 SEATS)

We propose a Madeley and Betley Ward of two seats, composed of the parishes of Madeley, Betley, and .

Linked by the A531 these three parishes are within acceptable variance of electors for a two-seat ward. While Madeley is by far the largest of the three, Betley (including Wrinehill) and Balterley are awkwardly served at present, being joined with the Halmerend part of Audley Parish, from which these communities are very separate.

10 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES Our proposal better represents these villages by linking them with their neighbours. In addition, Madeley is by no means monolithic, with Madeley Heath and Onneley village (both on the A525, either side of Madeley proper) making this proposed ward a collection of like communities.

NEWCHAPEL WARD (2 SEATS)

The Newchapel ward today is diminished from the ward that existed (both at Parish and District level) prior to the last review, when Kidsgrove as a whole had four wards, rather than the five it has today.

We propose a Newchapel Ward of 2 seats, composed of the whole of the current Newchapel Ward, plus polling district AAA02, and that part of polling district AAA04 that is North of Newchapel Road and East of that road’s junction with High Street, Rookery. This includes Newchapel Road odd numbers 25 to 95, Woodhall Road, Wentworth Drive, St Andrews Drive, and Lark Avenue. This last, being presently included in an exclave of the AAA04 polling district, is symptomatic of how irregular are the Kidsgrove polling districts. Bearing in mind difficulty of working with these polling districts, we estimate the total number of AAA04 electors that we are including in the Newchapel Ward at 358.

Other solutions exist, principally solutions that involve splitting AAA02 in addition to AAA04, and we would be open to considering further ways in which the boundary at this location could be strengthened.

As our proposal stands, we have arranged a boundary such that from three exits of the Pennyfields roundabout (Lapwing Road, Pennyfields Road, and Mount Road) all properties fall within Newchapel; from one exit (Newchapel Road) the properties on one side (the North side) fall within Newchapel, and from the one remaining exit (Whitehill Road, which leads back towards Kidsgrove) all properties fall within a Kidsgrove ward.

This proposed ward is still smaller than the pre-Millennium ‘Newchapel’ whose western boundary issued from the intersection of the Borough boundary and Cob Moor Road, and proceeded Southwest along the centre of Galleys Bank, and then ran between properties in the Whitehill area. Our proposal, however, is more numerically equal, and does not split Whitehill in the same way.

KIDSGROVE AND RAVENSCLIFFE WARD (3 SEATS) TALKE AND BUTT LANE WARD (3 SEATS)

We propose a Kidsgrove and Ravenscliffe Ward of three seats, composed of the whole of the current Ravenscliffe Ward, plus Kidsgrove polling districts AAA01, AAA03, and that part of AAA04 that we have not included in the Newchapel Ward. To this we would add that part of polling district BBB04 that is bounded by Boathorse Road,

11 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES First Avenue, Second Avenue, Hardingswood Road, Gloucester Road and the railway line.

We propose a Talke and Butt Lane Ward of three seats, composed of the whole of the current Talke Ward, and Butt Lane polling districts BBB01, BBB02, BBB03, and that part of BBB04 that we have not included in the Kidsgrove and Ravenscliffe Ward.

Having dealt with the rural and Northeastern part of the Parish in Newchapel Ward, we considered urban Kidsgrove together as a whole. The railway line that currently divides Kidsgrove and Ravenscliffe from Talke and Butt Lane wards is still a strong place to start from. However, because electors have been removed from Kidsgrove, and in anticipation of new building development in the BBB01 polling district adding to that area’s total of electors in future, we have amended the boundary to include the area East of First and Second Avenue. To form a clear and identifiable boundary, we have taken the middle of those roads as the boundary between the two Kidsgrove wards that we are proposing to name after their four predecessor wards.

Appendices: (1) Composition of proposed wards and size calculations (PDF) (2) Useful Maps (PNGs)

12 NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES APPENDIX 1: PROPOSED WARD COMPOSITION AND SIZE CALCULATIONS

Variance Variance 2018 2022 CCC01 Talke 1547 1549 CCC02 Talke 1553 1571 BBB01 Butt Lane 1407 1719 BBB02 Butt Lane 845 846 BBB03 Butt Lane 722 759 BBB04 (part) Butt Lane 753 755 TALKE AND BUTT LANE (3) 6827 7199 7% 10%

BBB04 (part) Butt Lane 518 518 AAA01 Kidsgrove 1162 1164 AAA03 Kidsgrove 1369 1371 AAA04 (part) Kidsgrove 663 665 DDD01 Ravenscliffe 2310 2312 DDD02 Ravenscliffe 931 932 KIDSGROVE AND RAVENSCLIFFE (3) 6953 6962 9% 6%

ZZ001 Newchapel 708 710 ZZ002 Newchapel 843 844 ZZ003 Newchapel 1218 1220 AAA02 Kidsgrove 1453 1455 AAA04 (part) Kidsgrove 358 358 NEWCHAPEL (2) 4580 4587 8% 5%

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES Variance Variance 2018 2022 X0001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 226 228 X0002 Loggerheads and Whitmore 92 93 Y0001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 408 410 Z0001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 320 321 AA001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 716 861 BB001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 288 290 CC001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 2306 2527 LOGGERHEADS (2) 4356 4730 2% 8%

V0001 Madeley 1032 1034 V0002 Madeley 1190 1260 V0003 Madeley 1065 1066 V0004 Madeley 119 121 S0001 Halmerend 588 589 T0001 Halmerend 257 259 U0001 Halmerend 177 178 MADELEY AND BETLEY (2) 4428 4507 4% 3%

P0001 Audley and Bignall End 909 910 P0002 Audley and Bignall End 1046 1048 Q0001 Audley and Bignall End 1770 1914 Q0002 Audley and Bignall End 854 855 R0001 Halmerend 1247 1248 R0002 Halmerend 526 528 AUDLEY RURAL (3) 6352 6503 -1% -1%

W0001 Loggerheads and Whitmore 1027 1085 W0002 Loggerheads and Whitmore 239 240 O0001 Keele 512 582 O0002 Keele 956 1054 R0003 Halmerend 251 253 KEELE AND WHITMORE (2) 2985 3214 -30% -26%

M0001 Silverdale and Parksite 573 575 M0002 Silverdale and Parksite 546 577 M0003 Silverdale and Parksite 749 751 M0004 Silverdale and Parksite 1269 1271 N0001 Knutton and Silverdale 1145 1147 N0002 Knutton and Silverdale 889 891 N0003 Knutton and Silverdale 303 305 N0004 Knutton and Silverdale 744 746 SILVERDALE AND KNUTTON (3) 6218 6263 -3% -4%

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES Variance Variance 2018 2022 I0001 Thistleberry 1467 1468 I0002 (part) Thistleberry 130 130 I0003 Thistleberry 643 644 I0004 Thistleberry 727 729 I0005 Thistleberry 889 1087 THISTLEBERRY (2) 3856 4058 -9% -7%

I0002 (part) Thistleberry 949 951 H0001 Town 449 461 H0002 Town 648 842 H0003 Town 1270 1361 H0004 Town 518 532 H0005 Town 317 319 G0004 Cross Heath 231 291 TOWN (2) 4382 4757 3% 9%

A0001 Bradwell 1862 1864 A0002 (part) Bradwell 1012 1013 A0003 (part) Bradwell 1793 1795 BRADWELL (2) 4667 4672 10% 7%

E0001 Chesterton 1306 1415 E0002 Chesterton 1490 1492 E0003 Chesterton 977 979 E0004 (part) Chesterton 587 587 CHESTERTON AND CRACKLEY (2) 4360 4473 2% 2%

E0004 (part) Chesterton 666 678 E0005 Chesterton 219 221 F0001 Holditch 2228 2252 F0002 Holditch 1168 1170 HOLDITCH AND CHESTERTON (2) 4281 4321 1% -1%

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES Variance Variance 2018 2022 J0001 Westlands 553 575 J0001A Westlands 36 38 J0002 Westlands 1426 1428 J0003 Westlands 1082 1084 J0004 Westlands 1474 1476 L0001 Clayton 1307 1309 WESTLANDS AND LYME VALLEY (3) 5878 5910 -8% -10%

L0002 Clayton 1172 1201 L0003 Clayton 786 787 K0001 Seabridge 1508 1510 K0002 Seabridge 1287 1289 K0003 Seabridge 1740 1742 CLAYTON AND WESTBURY PARK (3) 6493 6529 2% 0%

A0003 (part) Bradwell 88 88 G0001 Cross Heath 1435 1606 G0002 Cross Heath 469 471 G0003 Cross Heath 1435 1436 G0005 Cross Heath 1036 1038 C0002 (part) Wolstanton 71 71 C0003 (part) Wolstanton 38 38 CROSS HEATH (2) 4572 4748 7% 9%

A0002 (part) Bradwell 60 60 B0001 Porthill 708 709 B0002 Porthill 1382 1384 B0003 Porthill 1043 1044 C0001 Wolstanton 873 922 C0002 (part) Wolstanton 561 563 C0003 (part) Wolstanton 829 831 C0004 Wolstanton 1291 1293 WOLSTANTON AND PORTHILL (3) 6747 6806 6% 4%

C0005 Wolstanton 946 964 D0001 May Bank 1067 1068 D0002 May Bank 1289 1291 D0003 May Bank 1543 1544 D0004 May Bank 145 147 D0005 May Bank 313 314 D0006 May Bank 495 582 MAY BANK (3) 5798 5910 -9% -10%

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME CONSERVATIVES Newcastle-under-Lyme Conservatives (Part 3)

Chesterton & Crackley

Clayton and Westbury Park

Cross Heath

Holditch and Chesterton

Proposed boundary detail – Chesterton Keele and Whitmore

May Bank

Proposed division of Kidsgrove parish –

Proposed boundary detail – Kidsgrove

Proposed boundary detail – Newchapel

Thistleberry

Proposed boundary detail – Thistleberry

Town

Westlands and Lyme Valley

Wolstanton & Porthill