Councillor submissions to the Borough Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 15 submissions from Councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

14th October 2015

The Review Officer (Warrington) Local Boundary Commission for 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir/Madam,

BOUNDARY REVIEW FOR WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

My background and response to the consultation

I have been a Parish Councillor in Appleton for 25 years and Borough Councillor for Appleton on Warrington Borough Council for 24 years. I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposals in the Boundary Review for Warrington, especially as they affect south Warrington and in particular Appleton. In my opinion they will harm community identity and destroy effective and convenient local government in the villages south of the .

The Parish of Appleton

The Parish of Appleton is defined by clear boundaries: the to the north, Green Belt to the east and west and, to the south, the boundaries with the Unitary Authority of East, the Unitary Authority of Cheshire West and and the parish of Stretton.

There are four Parish Council wards:

1. Hill Cliffe Ward to the west of the A49 (three parish councillors) 2. Cobbs Ward, which consists of the Cobbs estate plus adjacent roads (four parish councillors)

1 3. Hall Ward, which consists of the Appleton Park estate and other roads, much of which was built on the grounds of the former Appleton Hall (four parish councillors) 4. Thorn Ward, which consists of the village of and adjacent roads (two parish councillors).

The current Borough Council ward of Appleton is coterminous with the Parish of Appleton. This makes for effective and convenient local government

Other Parish Councils in south Warrington

There are six other parishes south of the Manchester Ship Canal: , and , , Walton, Hatton and Stretton. The parishes of Hatton, Stretton and and Walton together elect a single borough councillor; the other parishes elect borough councillors just for their own parish. This electoral arrangement has worked very effectively.

The proposals for south Warrington

Under the proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England the five Borough Council wards in south Warrington would essentially consist of the following areas:

Appleton: Part of Appleton, part of Walton plus Hatton and Stretton

Grappenhall: Most of Grappenhall plus Thorn Ward from Appleton

Lymm North and Thelwall: the northern part of Lymm plus most of Thelwall and a bit of Grappenhall

Lymm South: the southern part of Lymm

Stockton Heath: the village of Stockton Heath plus part of Walton and a bit of the Hill Cliffe ward of Appleton

If this sounds like a total dog’s breakfast, this is because it is!

Appleton has no community linkage with the village of Walton. Grappenhall has no community links with Appleton Thorn, which is the oldest part of the Parish of Appleton, containing the Parish Church and the war memorial. Thelwall does not have links with Lymm. The northern part of Hill Cliffe does not identify with Stockton Heath, being separated by the Bridgewater Canal.

The proposed arrangement could not possibly lead to effective and convenient local government. Five borough councillors would have an interest in the parish of Lymm, five borough councillors would have an interest in , five borough councillors would have an interest in the parish of Walton and no fewer than SEVEN borough councillors would have an interest in the parish of Appleton.

Fundamental errors in the understanding of south Warrington

The descriptions of the proposed wards indicate an ignorance of the parishes south of the Manchester Ship Canal, if the descriptions are reported correctly in the Council Summons for the meeting of Warrington Borough Council held on Monday 7th September 2015.

The new Appleton ward is described in the following way: “This ward comprises part of the parish of Appleton, the community of Cobbs and the parish of Walton.” In fact the Cobbs estate is very much in the Parish of Appleton. I represent the Cobbs Ward on Appleton Parish Council! In addition, the ward would include only part of the parish of Walton; Lower Walton would go into Stockton Heath.

The description of the new Grappenhall ward refers to “part of Appleton parish and the community of Thorn”. Appleton Thorn, like the Cobbs estate, is in the parish of Appleton.

The proposals for new wards for Appleton Parish Council

2 The following wards are proposed:

Hill Cliffe North (one councillor) Thorn Ward (two councillors as at present) Cobbs and Hill Cliffe (TEN councillors).

The boundary between Hill Cliffe North, in the new Stockton Heath Borough Council ward, and what is described as Cobbs and Hill Cliffe, in the new Appleton ward, is completely arbitrary because there is no natural boundary at all here.

Is the Commission serious about this extraordinary suggestion of a ten member ward? And does it realise that what is called Cobbs and Hill Cliffe consists of the current wards of Cobbs (four councillors) and Hall (four councillors) and the southern part of Hill Cliffe.

Apart from the name given for the ten-member ward, which completely ignores the current Hall Ward, the election of ten councillors would be completely impracticable. If the Commission insists on going ahead with its ludicrous proposals, then Appleton Parish Council should be split into Hill Cliffe North (one councillor), Hill Cliffe South (two councillors), Cobbs (four councillors), Thorn (two councillors) and Hall (four councillors).

An alternative proposal

The attempt to deal with electoral inequality in Lymm has resulted in disruption to the electoral arrangements for the whole of south Warrington. If three borough councillors are insufficient for the electorate in Lymm, then Lymm should be split into two two-member wards and the other parishes south of the Ship Canal left essentially as they are. The additional councillor then required south of the Manchester Ship Canal could be found by reducing the number of councillors in north Warrington. For example, at present Poulton North, Poulton South and Rixton & Woolston are substantially over-represented and the number of borough councillors for those wards could be reduced by one.

Conclusions

The proposals from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Warrington Borough Council are totally unacceptable. Although they satisfy the criterion of electoral equality, they do not meet the criteria for community identity and effective and convenient local government. The alternative proposal outlined above meets all three criteria and is therefore a great improvement.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Axcell

Cllr. Dr B.P. Axcell Borough Councillor for Appleton Parish Councillor for Cobbs, Ward, Appleton Parish Council

3

Boundary Review (Warrington)

Whilst we support in full the principles of the Draft Recommendations of the Boundary Commission, we would wish to suggest one small amendment.

Highfield Avenue seems to break the alignment of the A57 being a boundary.

In the interests of community cohesion and electoral equality we feel that this small Avenue should form part of the extended and ward and not be in the ward of North and Whittle Hall.

This will create a straighter and more easily identifiable boundary for our ward.

The new residents in the properties around Highfield Avenue (Liverpool Road, Whitethorn Avenue, and Barnes Close) incorporated into the extended Penketh and Cuerdley ward will now have a short walk to the large polling station at Penketh High School using a long standing, paved and lit public footpath from the school, which abuts and passes through Highfield Avenue.

However, the residents of Highfield Avenue itself will have to cast their vote (walking some distance in the opposite direction) at a polling station in Great Sankey North and Whittle Hall… crossing the busy A57.

We hope you will take our views on this small amendment into consideration.

Cllr Linda Dirir

Cllr Allin Dirir

Cllr David Keane

Borough Councillors representing Penketh and Cuerdley.

19th October 15

Review Officer (Warrinrton) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP Sent by e mail to – [email protected]

Dear Sirs Electoral Review of Warrington, Draft Recommendations 25th Aug 15 As a member of Walton Parish Council I have looked at the Draft Recommendations for our Ward.. I am flabbergasted at the recommendation made to split out Parish ward. The document I have seen and what I have heard gives no indication of how the recommendation is justified. With there being no justification, I am unable to correct misconceptions. Borough Cllr Kennedy has set out in his response the figure for electorate/Cllr for this ward and the clearly satisfy your intensions regarding representation. I believe that all other aspects of your criteria are adequately met at present and would not be improved by the proposed change. Indeed, some will be less well catered for. Parishes on the outskirts of a town are invariably dependent on services within the town as trade becomes more centralised. This has not caused any loss of identity within the Parish The Parish of Walton has ties and association with our neighbours Hatton Parish. Because we are both longstanding Parishes there is strong empathy between us.. The proposed split can only reduce the cohesion that presently exists. The split within the Parish of Walton will be worse as we are proud to be in Walton Parish You will see from my address that I actually live within Stockton Heath - ever since the Parish boundary between Walton and Stockton Heath was moved by about 100 yards. However, I still have allegiance to Walton and have served as a Walton Parish Cllr for 20 years. There is very strong feeling within the Parish of the proposal to change the name of one of out Parish wards from Higher Walton to West Walton. This appears to be without any justification, has riled the parishioners and takes away a traditional name. It should not be proceeded with. I appeal to you to reconsider your proposal and accept that your own criteria are well satisfied by the present Ward arrangement. Your faithfully Parish Councillor Robert Hardie Sirs

I am writing to lodge my discontent at the suggestions made from your recent review of the above. I am writing as a Parish Coucillor for Stretton Parish and a resident of Appleton Thorn. As a Parish Councillor for Stretton I attended the briefing held by your personnel and the Borough Council in Warrington Twon Hall. The changes suggested then and communicated to my fellow councillors at the next Parish Council meeting would appear to have been ignored. Everbody I have spoken to and formerly met with is very upset at the changes proposed For Stretton and I am aware after a meeting with colleagues from Hatton and Walton their feelings are similar. We have enjoyed the excellent help from our Borough Councillor Paul Kennedy and have no wish to see this change. I believe that the three parishes were combined in 1997 because of the rural nature and common issues we share. What has changed? Whilst are numbers are perhaps small early and significant growth is planned for Sretton which will help to redress the numerical issues. It has been suggested that the Boundary Commission dislike wards with single coucillors is that the case? The LGBCE Guidance states that " A good pattern of Wards should refelect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links" These suggestion appear to be at odds with this criteria.

1 As a resident of Appleton Thorn currently linked with Appleton I suggest the clue is in our name and merging with the good people of Grappenhall has no logic.

regards ‐‐ David Hutchinson

2 Cllr Wendy Johnson

Mr W Morrrison Review Officer (Warrington) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Mr Morrison

Electoral Review of Warrington – Draft Recommendations – New electoral arrangements for Warrington Borough Council – August 2015

I refer to the above document and I am providing comments on the proposals set out in it for a new Borough Council ward of Lymm North and Thelwall from myself Cllr Wendy Johnson, Parish Councillor for Grappenhall and Thelwall and Borough Councillor for Warrington Borough Council Grappenhall and Thelwall ward. I am strongly opposed to the proposal for a Borough ward of ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ put forward by the Boundary Commission. I support the views and proposals of Lymm Parish Council expressed in its documents of 14 September and 12 October. The Boundary Commission’s proposal for the new ward undeniably achieves improved electoral equality in Lymm. It is, however, immensely damaging for effective and convenient local government and for community identity in Lymm, and also in Grappenhall and Thelwall and in Appleton (see the submission from Appleton Parish Council of 16 September). The proposed Borough ward of ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ cannot meet the requirements for Community Identity and Effective Local Goverment that the existing Borough wards of Lymm and Grappenhall and Thelwall can both demonstrably meet. The details provided below support this point of view. The proposal of 12 October made by Lymm Parish Council also improves electoral equality and additionally maintains both established community identity and effective and convenient local government for both Lymm and for Grappenhall and Thelwall.

Statutory Criteria I understand that any decision on ward boundaries is a balance between three statutory criteria:  Delivering electoral equality for local voters  Interests and identities of local communities  Effective and convenient local government

I agree with and support the comments made by Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council 15th October and emphasise that the impact of the proposal falls not only on Lymm but also on Grappenhall and Thelwall and to a lesser extent on Appleton. In evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, I ask that the Commission take into account the negative impact on all of the wards affected and consider the destructive effect this would have on the very close communities of Grappenhall and Thelwall, I don’t believe the people we represent as Councillors or the community spirit and links we have, have been considered.

Electoral Equality

Currently, WBC figures show that Lymm has an electorate of 10434, which elects 3 Borough Councillors. Thus Lymm has 3478 voters per Councillor, which is a variance of +19% from the borough norm. I recognise that this is not acceptable and recognises that action has to be taken, but I am very concerned at the disruption that will be caused if the current proposal of the Boundaries Commission is implemented (see below for details). I consider, however, that there is a simple way of improving electoral equality that is less disruptive than that proposed by the Boundaries Commission. If Lymm had 4 Borough Councillors (in two 2-member wards) instead of 3, it would have 2608 voters per Councillor and a variance of about -10%. This is a marked improvement on +19%. The creation of two two-member wards in Lymm is consistent with the guidance given by the Boundaries Commission for Borough Councils holding whole-council elections, as will be the case in Warrington from 2016. Lymm Parish Council has provided detail of a firm proposal along the lines outlined above in its document of October 12, which delivers an even smaller variance, and I support Lymm’s proposal. Under this proposal, the borough ward of Grappenhall and Thelwall would be unaffected, and its electoral equality would remain very good, with its current variance of -3% being unchanged.

I urge the Boundaries Commission to accept Lymm’s proposal as the least disruptive way of improving electoral equality in Lymm.

Community Identity

Lymm is a village in its own right, with its own community identity, and Lymm Parish Council has provided a great deal of evidence to support this assertion and demonstrate that the present proposals of the Boundaries Commission will damage community identity in Lymm. I wholly support Lymm’s argument and will not reiterate it. Similar comments can be made with respect to the impact of the proposals on community identity in Appletion. In this submission, therefore, I comment only on the issue of community identity in Grappenhall and Thelwall ward.

Thelwall is a suburb of Warrington that merges into Grappenhall, the adjacent suburb, so closely that many residents believe they live in Thelwall but actually live in Grappenhall. There are no obvious boundaries that separate Grappenhall from Thelwall and there are innumerable crossing-points; the communities are genuinely intertwined. The existing Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council is the most obvious entity expressing the identity of the community – it works well and the turnout at local elections is very high.

Transport links within Grappenhall and Thelwall are good; better and more reliable than any links with Lymm. The parish is, furthermore, of a convenient shape: it is compact and more or less circular. It is not difficult to get from one end of the ward to the other by foot or bicycle. The proposed ward of Lymm North and Thelwall, however, presents serious problems of communication because the proposed ward measures at least 4 miles from end to end and is more or less linear. Even though the road (the A56) is good, as the Boundaries Commission’s proposal states, it is the only road that links Lymm to Thelwall; there is no opportunity for the close intertwining of the communities of Lymm and Thelwall in the way that has developed between Grappenhall and Thelwall. This is a great obstacle to community identity in the proposed new borough ward. It would be very hard for me as a Councillor representing Grappenhall and Thelwall, to represent residents in Lymm because of my lack of local knowledge and the lack of connection and links within the communities.

Community Groups. Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council its members and Borough Councillors are a strong and active team in the community. The Parish Council is well-run, with a qualified Clerk and RFO. The Council is as strong and active as it is because the existing parishing arrangements genuinely reflect community identity. Turnout at Borough Council and Parish Council elections is high. Parish and Borough Councillors are regularly seen attending events in the villages including tree planting and litter picking. Councillors run regular surgeries and residents are very aware who their Councillors are and of their local knowledge and how to contact them. The Parish Warden has organised a litter-picking day in November for the whole parish. These may be small points in their own right, but they are among many which illustrate the cohesive nature of Grappenhall and Thelwall. They may be separate villages, but they share a common identity.

The three Borough Councillors for Grappenhall and Thelwall are also members of the Grappenhall and Thelwall Parish Council and work closely as a team within the communities. This link enables us to carry out our duties effectively and to have very clear understanding of the needs of our ward and to have very close links with fellow Councillors.

By the same token, I do not believe that the proposed ward of Lymm North and Thelwall would be able to achieve community cohesion. Local people would not believe in it and without support from a Parish Council on the ground it would be nothing but a paper entity. Aside from the Parish Council, the churches are active, there are Scouts, Guides and Cubs, a number of sports clubs, a Probus club, a youth club, a film club and the Friends of the Grappenhall Heys Walled Garden. All of these are open to residents of both Grappenhall and Thelwall no matter whether they are Grappenhall groups or Thelwall groups.

Facilities are good in Grappenhall and Thelwall. Within the ward there are shops, a doctor’s surgery and a vet, a community-run library, three parks/playing fields, a community-owned historic walled garden and two community centres operated by community groups. There are post offices, hairdressers, cafes and hot food takeaways and a Chinese restaurant. These facilities are easily accessible to residents of both villages, and people do not need to go to Lymm for them. For entertainment, people generally look to Warrington or to the Manchester and Liverpool conurbations. They do not go to Lymm. Thus there are few facilities in Lymm that would compel people from Grappenhall or Thelwall to go there and thus no likelihood of developing a community identity for ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’.

Interests Many residents of Grappenhall and Thelwall are passionate supporters of Warrington’s Rugby League team and in this sense identify with Warrington. In Lymm, however, sentiment differs from the rest of Warrington – there, support for Rugby Union is strong and there is a successful nationally-known team based in the village. Most people care about the Green Belt and this is one reason why Thelwall is distinct from Lymm (see below). The churches in both Grappenhall and Thelwall are well-supported. There are numerous leisure groups based on either Grappenhall or Thelwall (Grappenhall, has a strong and well- supported cricket team; there is fishing,WI, British Legion) but, significantly, I am not aware of any group based on ‘Lymm and Thelwall’ as the Villages of Lymm and Thelwall do not link.

Identifiable Boundaries The parish boundaries that stand out most clearly on the map are the Manchester Ship Canal to the north, and to the east, the strip of green belt that separates Lymm from Thelwall and through which the M6 motorway runs. It is, of course, possible to cross the Manchester Ship Canal or to take the A56 which passes under the M6 - the only road which links Lymm to Thelwall; neither boundary is impassable. But in both cases the number of crossing-points is limited and effectively prevents the intertwining of communities which ought to be the prerequisite for a new Borough Ward. Thus, Thelwall associates well with Grappenhall by its geography, not with Lymm or with the wards north of the Ship Canal.

It will be clear from the above information that the proposed Borough ward of ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ would not be likely to have any community identity.

Effective Local Government

In Grappenhall and Thelwall, the borough ward and the parish wards are at present co- terminous. This makes it easy for parish issues to be aired at Borough level because the Borough councillors represent the parish wards exclusively. If ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ were created as a borough ward it would not be co-terminous with the parish wards either in Lymm or Thelwall. Thus, for example, Borough Councillors who might live in Lymm and have little knowledge of Thelwall would find themselves having to deal with detailed issues in Thelwall. This point is well-made in a different local context in Appleton Parish Council’s submission of 16th September but the argument is the same. It is highly undesirable for parish and borough wards not to be co-terminous and it will undoubtedly cause confusion in the minds of voters when borough and parish elections fall on the same day, as they will in 2016. In my opinion such on option should only be adopted if no other option is available. It is difficult to overstress this point. If ‘effective local government’ is truly the Boundary Commission’s desire, then the concept of ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ makes no sense and should be abandoned.

Parish Wards in Grappenhall and Thelwall

The Boundaries Commission draft recommendations includes a proposal to replace the existing 4 parish wards by two 8-seat wards. No rationale for the change is provided. I do not understand what advantage the proposed arrangements have over the current ones. It considers that the current arrangements reflect the feelings of residents about their own areas. Thus the existing wards of Thelwall and Grappenhall South are based on the two conservation areas in the parish and reflect a very local but real identity. The more populous central part of the parish is divided in two by the A50 and justifies the two other parish wards of Grappenhall Central and Grappenhall North. I am opposed to the proposed change in the parish wards.

Conclusion

In Grappenhall and Thelwall, the current electoral arrangements for the Borough Council are completely satisfactory. The above information shows that they deliver electoral equality and effective local government and they respect local identity. On the other hand, I can find no evidence to support ‘Lymm North and Thelwall’ as an entity in any meaningful sense and considers that the proposal would actually be damaging for effective local government and community identity, as demonstrated above. Electoral equality in Lymm can be achieved without the need for the proposed new borough ward, as Lymm Parish Council’s document of October 12 shows.

As a ward Councillor for over 20 years it saddens me that the Boundaries Commission proposals would strip us of our long established Community identity and strongly urge the Boundaries Commission not to change the electoral arrangements for Grappenhall and Thelwall either at borough level or at parish level and to accept the proposal for borough wards that Lymm Parish Council has made.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Wendy Johnson Grappenhall and Thelwall Borough and Parish Councillor

BY EMAIL: [email protected]

For the attention of Mr Richard Buck, Review Manager, LGBCE.

29 August 2015

Dear Mr Buck

Re. Warrington Boundary Review – Draft Recommendations

I refer to the Draft Recommendations published on 25 August 2015, and would like to comment on the recommendation to erase the Hatton, Stretton & Walton Ward from the Borough.

It is accepted that Hatton, Stretton & Walton, whilst geographically large, does have a small electorate. Nevertheless, as the following figures will show, the Ward, does currently, and is projected in 2020 to come within the 10% variance to average that the LGBCE sets as an important criteria when deciding on Ward patterns.

As at the date of this letter, the electorate for the Ward is 2,539 (which is fractionally greater than the 2014 figure of 2526 submitted by Warrington Borough Council). The current figure is therefore 9.7% less than the average of 2,812 and within the 10% criteria. Projecting forward to 2020, the Warrington Borough Council July 2015 Strategic Housing Land Available Assessment (SHLAA) for the Ward, lists 149 sites that are deliverable. It would therefore be entirely reasonable to assume that those 149 sites would increase the electorate for the Ward by 200, resulting in a 2020 electorate of 2,739. That would result in a variance to the 2020 average of 2,912, of -5.9%, and well within the 10% criteria. On that basis, there is no reason for the existing Hatton, Stretton & Walton Ward to be subject to any change at all.

With regards to equality of votes, might I respectfully suggest that what residents most want is quality of representation, accountability and recognition of the area in which they live. As a distinct Borough Ward, as it is now, that is exactly what the residents of Hatton, Stretton & Walton Ward receive. In my opinion, that will not be the case, when and if, the Ward is broken up and the names of the three Parish Communities are erased from the Borough Wards. In the LGBCE Guidance Literature, it is stated that; “A good pattern of Wards should: reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links”. There is also inference within the guidance, that having a greater number of Councillors in a Ward dilutes accountability, I agree with that. It therefore follows that a single Member Ward, such as Hatton, Stretton & Walton gives perfect accountability.

Specifically looking at the proposal for Walton, it is to divide it between both Appleton and Stockton Heath. That will be confusing for both its residents and Parish Council, leading, I would suggest, to ineffective representation and accountability at a Borough level. With regards to the use of the description of Lower Walton by the LGBCE, locally the area is known by residents as Walton, with Lower Walton being north of the Manchester Ship Canal and part of the West Ward.

In light of the above, I would ask that the Draft Recommendation is revised, and that the Hatton, Stretton and Walton Ward is reinstated exactly to how it is now. From my analysis of the numbers, I do not believe that its reinstatement will change the variance to average figure to one that exceeds the 10% criteria, for the Wards of Appleton and Stockton Heath.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation. I would be happy to drive you around the Ward and to discuss my representation with you, should you wish.

Yours sincerely

Paul Kennedy

Warrington Borough Councillor for the Hatton, Stretton & Walton Ward

Subject: Re Boundary Commission Review for Warrington Borough Council

Dear sir/madam,

I wish to make some comments on the above boundary review, in relation to the ward I represent – Latchford West.

As you will be aware, the areas of Latchford East and Latchford West are too large to be divided easily into two wards, and the proposal tsubmitted by Warrington Borough Council was to move a section to the West of the ward (the area known as Lower Walton) into Penketh and Cuerdley.

Although I understood the rationale behind this at the time – which is a case driven by numbers, but also related to the small number of properties in the surrounding area that are actually part of Penketh and Cuerdley ward, I felt that a better arrangement would have been to move this area into Hatton, Stretton and Walton. Due to its proximity with the Walton Swing Bridge, and to this area being traditionally known as ‘Lower Walton’, there is clearly a much closer link between the community here, and the community on the other side of the swing bridge. I understand that the ideal is to use the Manchester Ship Canal as a clear boundary, but in geographical and community cohesion terms this solution makes a lot more sense.

The Boundary Commission’s proposals suggest that a slightly larger area than the Warrington proposal should be moved into the ward of and Whitecross. Whilst geographically, these sites look close together, the issue of waterways and a lack of a footpath between the two areas make this an unsuitable choice in my opinion. Geographically, these are very distinct areas, and the only way to get from the nearest residential property in Bewsey and Whitecross to this area is to take an absolute minimum 20 minute walk for a fit and healthy person (half an hour for someone whose mobility may be limited by age), or a drive around Bridge Foot (which in itself often takes half an hour due to Warrington’s well‐documented transport issues). This proposal would certainly cause difficulties for the ward councillors – and in turn for local residents ability to access their councillors easily. Whilst there are proposals to build a bridge connecting Chester Road with the business park in this area, these are not due to be realised for some time. I continue to believe that this community naturally identifies with the area directly south of the Manchester Ship Canal, and that a solution which recognises this would be much more satisfactory.

I would like to make a further comment on this matter. The people living in this area of Lower Walton need to retain a sense of local identity. If the Commission goes ahead with these proposals, I would like the name of the ward to be considered. Can I suggest Bewsey, Whitecross and Lower Walton? This would at least serve to recognise this community as having their own identity. Residents have long suggested to me that they do not identify with the name Latchford West, and I am sure from conversations with residents ‐ and from my own local knowledge ‐ that changing their ward name to Bewsey and Whitecross will leave them to feel misrepresented and ignored.

1 I hope you will consider these matters in full, and pay particular attention to residents’ sense of geographical identity when making your decision.

Kind regards,

Maureen McLaughlin

2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Warrington

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Parish

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Further to the submission (8 October) from Cllrs Pat Wright, Jeff Richards and myself, re the inappropriate inclusion of parts of Lower Walton in Bewsey and Whitecross ward, I note that David Mowat MP, in a submission arguing in general against the Commission's proposals for south of the Ship Canal, suggests that if the Commission does not change its mind, Stockton Heath ward should be renamed "Stockton Heath and Lower Walton". That rather reinforces the difficulty of having the part of Lower Walton north of the Canal included in another ward where the community links are over a mile distant with no obvious affinity of any kind to the rest of the ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6159 21/10/2015 Bewsey and Whitecross

LGBC proposal to put part of Latchford West in Bewsey & Whitecross

It is appreciated that the Commission is primarily concerned with electoral equality, and that parish boundaries and other community identities seem to have been very much secondary issues. However, the proposal to put part of Lower Walton in Bewsey and Whitecross ward seems frankly bizarre, creating a three-mile long ward in the inner unparished area, with one small part over a mile from the next nearest voters. To all intents and purposes, in terms of where people reside, this looks very much like a small detached portion of a larger ward, which the Commission itself would not normally recommend. See 4.56 of the Guidance:

“Proposals are occasionally put forward for a detached ward, made up of two geographically separate areas. We have concerns over the use of detached wards. They lend themselves to the creation of electoral areas that lack community identity and which may owe more to purely political considerations than to community identity and interest. We therefore take the view that the use of detached wards, other than to recognise particularly unusual circumstances (offshore islands, for example) is undesirable, and we will not normally recommend them.”

While respecting the Ship Canal as a boundary, it ignores the rather more formidable boundary of the tidal Mersey; true, it would be possible to walk between the two parts of the proposed ward along the west side of Chester Road, but that’s only possible by moving the boundary to the middle of the road rather than the more obvious middle of the river.

Historically (see 1880s map) this was all part of Lower Walton (or “Walton Inferior” as marked on the map). The new development on the east side is known as Walton Locks (the Lock, derelict, is still there, ostensibly with navigation rights between the new cut of the Mersey and the Ship Canal). Community links may be stronger with the south side of the Canal than with the distant rest of the ward, hence the Council’s earlier proposal to make it part of the single-member Hatton, Stretton and Walton ward, within the 10% variance. The Commission’s proposal of a 3-member Appleton ward makes adding this part of Lower Walton to that ward likely to take it over 10% variance, and adding it to Stockton Heath would create a similar variance.

The obvious other solution is to leave it, for community and continuity purposes, as part of Latchford West ward, although this would take the ward marginally over the 10% variance. While not ideal, this does have to be weighed against the oddity of, effectively, creating a detached part of another ward.

While forecasts for new housing are not always reliable, Bewsey and Whitecross ward does have several new developments in the pipeline, and (quite likely earlier than 2020) adding more electors than the 684 currently in the Lower Walton (north) area. These include a 200-dwelling site at Bewsey Old School, a 150- dwelling site in Dallam (another old school site), Hawleys Lane and Harrison Square in Dallam, and at Hawthorn Industrial estate. On top of this, many town centre offices have been converted to apartments, and this is a growing trend – electors in the town centre polling district SBG went from 556 in 2010 to 1076 in 2014 (reducing to 949 in 2015, presumably because of individual voter registration).

The problem of including this area in the ward is highlighted by the task of coming up with a name for the proposed ward. Even now “Bewsey and Whitecross” does not do justice to the different communities within it. Should the Commission be minded to persist, other than joke names like Bewsey and the Regions Beyond (a biblical allusion), or Bewsey and Bits, it really is hard to come up with a cogent name. Even using “Lower Walton” is awkward, as most of Lower Walton is south of the Canal. “Walton Locks” would probably upset residents who are not part of the new development. “Morley Common” is a recognised name but itself not really connected to the new Walton Locks development.

We urge the Commission to revise its proposal in this respect.

Cllr Steve Parish (supported by Cllrs Jeff Richards, Pat Wright)

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Warrington

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Parish

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Bewsey and Whitecross LGBC proposal to put part of Latchford West in Bewsey & Whitecross It is appreciated that the Commission is primarily concerned with electoral equality, and that parish boundaries and other community identities seem to have been very much secondary issues. However, the proposal to put part of Lower Walton in Bewsey and Whitecross ward seems frankly bizarre, creating a three-mile long ward in the inner unparished area, with one small part over a mile from the next nearest voters. To all intents and purposes, in terms of where people reside, this looks very much like a small detached portion of a larger ward, which the Commission itself would not normally recommend. See 4.56 of the Guidance: “Proposals are occasionally put forward for a detached ward, made up of two geographically separate areas. We have concerns over the use of detached wards. They lend themselves to the creation of electoral areas that lack community identity and which may owe more to purely political considerations than to community identity and interest. We therefore take the view that the use of detached wards, other than to recognise particularly unusual circumstances (offshore islands, for example) is undesirable, and we will not normally recommend them.” While respecting the Ship Canal as a boundary, it ignores the rather more formidable boundary of the tidal Mersey; true, it would be possible to walk between the two parts of the proposed ward along the west side of Chester Road, but that’s only possible by moving the boundary to the middle of the road rather than the more obvious middle of the river. Historically (see 1880s map) this was all part of Lower Walton (or “Walton Inferior” as marked on the map). The new development on the east side is known as Walton Locks (the Lock, derelict, is still there, ostensibly with navigation rights between the new cut of the Mersey and the Ship Canal). Community links may be stronger with the south side of the Canal than with the distant rest of the ward, hence the Council’s earlier proposal to make it part of the single-member Hatton, Stretton and Walton ward, within the 10% variance. The Commission’s proposal of a 3-member Appleton ward makes adding this part of Lower Walton to that ward likely to take it over 10% variance, and adding it to Stockton Heath would create a similar variance. The obvious other solution is to leave it, for community and continuity purposes, as part of Latchford West ward, although this would take the ward marginally over the 10% variance. While not ideal, this does have to be weighed against the oddity of, effectively, creating a detached part of another ward. While forecasts for new housing are not always reliable, Bewsey and Whitecross ward does have several new developments in the pipeline, and (quite likely earlier than 2020) adding more electors than the 684 currently in the Lower Walton (north) area. These include a 200-dwelling site at Bewsey Old School, a 150-dwelling site in Dallam (another old school site), Hawleys Lane and Harrison Square in Dallam, and at Hawthorn Industrial estate. On top of this, many town centre offices have been converted to apartments, and this is a growing trend – electors in the town centre polling district SBG went from 556 in 2010 to 1076 in 2014 (reducing to 949 in 2015, presumably because of individual voter registration). The problem of including this area in the ward is highlighted by the task of coming up with a name for the proposed ward. Even now “Bewsey and Whitecross” does not do justice to the different communities within it. Should the Commission be minded to persist, other than joke names like Bewsey and the Regions Beyond (a biblical allusion), or Bewsey and Bits, it really is hard to come up with a cogent name. Even using “Lower Walton” is awkward, as most of Lower Walton is south of the Canal. “Walton Locks” would probably upset residents who are not part of the new development.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6089 09/10/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

“Morley Common” is a recognised name but itself not really connected to the new Walton Locks development. We urge the Commission to revise its proposal in this respect. Cllr Steve Parish (supported by Cllrs Jeff Richards, Pat Wright)

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6089 09/10/2015

Electoral review of Warrington:

Proposed Warding Pattern Rixton and Woolston

Submission by Ward Members to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England – Dated 16 October 2015

This submission responds to the draft recommendations in respect of the Rixton and Woolston Ward as published by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (the Commission) on the 25 August 2015.

Rixton and Woolston Ward Members believe that the proposed ward pattern in this submission is a balanced solution for the Community of Rixton and Woolston.

Our submission represents a pragmatic response to the current electoral inequalities, whilst maintaining the best of the current sensible arrangements, with wards shaped around community identity. The proposed warding scheme has been developed on the basis of extensive knowledge of the Ward and its communities.

This submission represents a shared view across ward members and Parish Council Members for Rixton and Woolston.

Both the ward members and Parish Council Members for Rixton and Woolston made representations to the Commission in July 2015. This remains our preferred option because the existing ward represents a good reflection of natural communities, retains community identities and enables the continuation of effective and convenient local government. There was no compelling case for wholesale change (see Appendix One for the Ward Members comments and Appendix Two for the Parish Council comments).

Our submission reflects the crucial factors in drawing up a pattern of electoral wards namely:-

 To deliver electoral equality where each councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough;  That the pattern of wards should as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities;  That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

We firmly believe that the ward of Rixton & Woolston is unique in so far of its huge geographical spread and the differing nature of the work that we undertake. The ward is made up of residential, rural, semi-rural, light industrial and heavy industrial, and we are involved in all of these areas on a 365 days of the year basis.

As well as the ongoing nature of residents casework and numerous planning applications that we deal with on behalf of residents, as other councillors do, we have also have had and continue to have significant involvement in the following:

 dealing with the closure and fall out of a high school  dealing with planning applications around the building of a new school within the ward  HS2 spur line planned to run through the ward has required significant involvement with local pressure groups and the Hs2 team in London  we have a huge landfill site within the ward that has generated significant work due to numerous planning applications and appeals over the last ten years  we also have a peace/anti fracking camp that has appeared recently and this too has generated significant workloads onto the three of us.

The Email evidence (attached as a confidential addendum and not for publication) is submitted to re-enforce the view that ward members are constantly busy dealing with ward issues which are unique to the geographical and community identity associated with the ward. Ward Members have noted the uncertainty about where new housing will be in 2020 following the Core Strategy High Court judgement against the Council which requires more land for housing to be put forward. The Geographical make-up of the ward provides for potential future development and we believe therefore that it is premature and wrong to make any major decisions on ward boundary changes at this stage.

Specific Proposal

However, in recognition that, if there is an over-riding need to ensure there is electoral equality such that no variance exceeds 10% either way, we have an alternative proposal. The warding pattern needs to be ‘future‐proofed’ as far as possible which takes into account the potential for future development even where this is not reflected in the electorate forecasts. Our proposal takes account of –

 a planning application for 75 permanent mobile homes at the junction of Warburton Bridge and the A57 with the possibilities of 200 electors;  a retirement home planned for Chapel lane to hold 75 residents; and  a large ex-military camp which is brownfield lying within the greenbelt which is vulnerable due to government policy on housing in greenbelt areas.

Should these get consent we believe that the ward will then meet the electoral equality criterial with a -10% variance (Appendix three).

Conclusion Our proposal is based on local knowledge. It is a balanced solution for the Community of Rixton and Woolston and represents a pragmatic response to the current electoral inequalities, whilst maintaining the best of the current sensible arrangements, with wards shaped around community identity. The proposed warding scheme has been developed on the basis of extensive knowledge of the Ward and its communities.

2

We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to present and explain our case in detail and would be more than willing to meet in London.

3

Appendix One

As one of the Ward Councillors representing Rixton & Woolston, I would like to submit my comments and reasoning as to why I believe that within the current Warrington boundary commission review, our Ward of Rixton and Woolston should maintain its status quo. Accepting that as a percentage of the head of population within our ward, we fall slightly short by around some 3%, I would put the case that Rixton and Woolston as a Ward, is somewhat unique both in its size and its diversity, as distinct to other Wards within the Borough of Warrington.

We have a Ward clearly defined by natural boundaries from Poulton South to the West of Warrington across to Rixton & Glazebrook to the East of Warrington bordering on the City of Salford, likewise with similar boundaries clearly defining the North and South of our Ward.

Taking into consideration where the large clusters of our residents live in Rixton and Woolston, in terms of diversity, we also represent a large farming community, several rural housing areas, especially in the Rixton areas of our Ward of Rixton, with reference to Hollins Green and Glazebrook. This would include the Dam Lane, Dam Head Lane, Vetch Close and out through Glazebrook to the borders of Glazebury/. We also have a residential community in Rixton that reside on a static caravan site. We have a cluster of houses at Claydon Gardens, plus outlying arears where residents are living along Holly Bush Lane, Moat Lane and Chapel Lane leading to the outlying farming communities. Finally in this part of our Ward we have to deal continually with the problems caused by the commercial Colliers tip.

If I can turn to Woolston, we have three industrial areas in this part of our Ward, Woolston Grange Industrial estate, being one of the largest if not the largest industrial estate in Warrington. I have listed some of the issues/complaints that we deal with on a regular basis.

Road and pavement/walkways repairs. – Grass cutting of verges and tree maintenance. – Street lighting, fly tipping, illegal parking, with noise and odours from some of the units. – Hours of agreed business. –Planning applications for new tenants or for changes of use. - Street traders (mobile cafes). - Petty crime in conjunction with the police. Travellers who encamp here on a regular basis including other areas of Woolston and indeed Rixton.

Finally I ask that consideration be given to the possible growth of our Ward in years to come. Much of the land that divides our Ward between Woolston and Rixton is classed as Green belt. There is now, and will be in not too distant future, a demand for more homes to be built in Warrington. The government is continually being more relaxed on the issue of developing in the green belt, and if this policy of protecting the green belt changes then I feel sure that housing/land developers will have a watchful eye on our Ward.

Cllr. Tony McCarthy.

As a ward councillor for Rixton and Woolston,I wish to keep the status quo ,although at the moment not running in line with the suggested number of electors.

4

1 We have natural boundaries going back to ancient times of physical barriers, in our case the River Glaze,Spittle Brook and the railway that borders our ward. 2Geographically it also supports our case,once again natural boundaries. 3 Minus 13% is not a lot to get us into the 10 % cut off ,for in coming years due to the present government going to relax planning laws in Green Belt,the acreage of land within the ward in particular the rural part covering the villages of Rixton,Hollins Green ,and Glazebrook ,the land surrounding them is vulnerable to developers,and if they do come into the ward our headcount will shoot up putting us within our requirements.

4 We have a large area to cover in discharging our duties to residents, which include urban properties ,three industrial estates and a very large rural community. 5 Over the years we have a very good relationship with the outlying communities in our ward,although some of the properties are remote ,they still get the same representation as ones living on our doorstep,as you will be able to see the size of the ward ,to perform our duties between the three of us it is very time consuming,getting to the scattered locations. Cllr Bill Brinksman. I would also like my comments to be recorded alongside Bill's as set out below. I agree with all the comments made and would like to add the following.

The ward (to the best of my knowledge) is the largest geographically within the Borough and so can prove to be quite time consuming when visiting and dealing with the local population.

The ward could be considered to be unique in that it contains distinctive conurbations, namely, rural and semi rural communities, residential area's and light to heavy industrial centres. This requires the the three of us as ward councillors to be able to deal with all manner of enquiries and issues which increases the time commitments on us. This may not be the case in other wards which due to their locations, may not be exposed to the diversity that we are.

It already has naturally defined boundaries which are easily understood by everyone.

The 10% cut off figure could easily be achieved in the near future with the relaxation of planning laws in the green belt belt but also the fact that we have had a number of new builds within the ward in the last few years. If this continues to happen, and there is no suggestion that it will not, then we could be easily achieving the target figure as defined.

Cllr Paul Bretherton

5

Appendix Two

3 July 2015

Dear Sir

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL

I refer to your email dated 12 May 2015 regarding the above.

The Parish Council gave consideration to the review at meetings held on 20 May and 17 June 2015. In particular consideration was given to the arrangements for the Rixton and Woolston Borough Ward.

The Parish Council agreed to support no change ie the retention of three Borough Ward Councillors for Rixton and Woolston with no change in the ward boundary.

Yours faithfully

D Pendleton

Clerk to the Council

In achieving fairness for its electorate voters, Rixton and Woolston support 3 borough councillors, to support its local communities ensuring effective local government in one of Warrington’s larger Wards. The current number of electorate is approximately 7500 living within large conurbations within Woolston and Rixton with Glazebrook, working within diverse businesses and farming.

In the support of maintaining our present ward boundaries I would first refer to the 2001 Recommendations of the Future Electoral Arrangements for Warrington produced by Local Government Boundary Commission. Within its final summary it suggested that Rixton and Woolston remained unchanged with 3 councillors, with an electorate number of 2.500 per councillor which is not dissimilar to today’s numbers.

Within the Rixton and Woolston ward we have 3 very efficient councillors and two very effective parish councils working closely together in support of its ward and parishioner’s. We have boundaries that are identifiable and fixed, to the south Manchester Ship Canal, to the east the county boundary between Warrington and Salford, to the north the M62 and the rail line between Liverpool and Manchester and to the west Poulton South and Latchford East.

6

Rixton and Woolston are thriving communities and a developing area, over the week planning permission was given to build 39 new homes. Both areas have direct access to the motorway network and presently the rail network that presently is being upgraded to electrification.

Finally I ask that consideration be given to points I have described, the fact that Rixton is classed as green belt and I feel sure that with government changes to planning regulations this would be an ideal area to increase housing stock.

Regards Dave

David Trenbath

Chair Rixton with Glazebrook Parish Council

7

Check my data 2014 2020 Number of councillors: 57 58 Overall electorate: 163,079 168,902 Average electorate per cllr: 2,861 2,912

Scroll left to see the first table

Which county division is this Which district ward is th s polling What is the What is the Fill in the name of each ward once. Fill in the number of polling district in? This columm Do not type in these cells. These cells will show you the electorate and variance. district in? This columm is not current forecast You can also use the drop down list councillors per is not essential but may help They change depending what you enter in the table to the left. essential but may help you. electorate? electorate? to select the ward. ward you.

Existing district/borough/city Electorate Electorate Number of cllrs Electorate Existing county division Name of ward Electorate 2014 Variance 2014 Variance 2020 ward MONTH 2014 MONTH 2020 per ward December 2020

Example Rural Example 480 502 APPLETON 3 7,915 -8% 8,529 -2% Example Rural Example 67 68 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 3 8,406 -2% 8,347 -4% Example Rural Example 893 897 3 8,565 0% 8,576 -2% Example Town Example 759 780 & WINWICK 2 5,228 -9% 5,240 -10% CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & Example Town Example 803 824 3 9,168 7% 9,352 7% CROFT FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 3 8,202 -4% 8,633 -1% GRAPPENHALL & BIRCHWOOD 2107 2203 3 8,182 -5% 8,511 -3% THELWALL BIRCHWOOD 2322 2428 GREAT SANKEY NORTH 2 6,456 13% 5,423 -7% BIRCHWOOD 2612 2731 GREAT SANKEY SOUTH 3 8,972 5% 8,386 -4% HATTON STRETTON & BIRCHWOOD 179 198 1 2,599 -9% 3,207 10% WALTON BIRCHWOOD 1273 1331 LATCHFORD EAST 2 6,035 5% 6,425 10% LATCHFORD WEST 2 6,208 8% 6,419 10% BURTONWOOD & WINWICK 1550 1626 LYMM 3 10,338 20% 10,429 19%

BURTONWOOD & WINWICK 1686 1767 ORFORD 3 8,945 4% 9,032 3% BURTONWOOD & WINWICK 1876 1965 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 3 8,665 1% 8,763 0% POPLARS & HULME 3 8,753 2% 9,010 3% CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 877 917 POULTON NORTH 3 8,082 -6% 8,084 -7% CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 1525 1706 POULTON SOUTH 2 5,247 -8% 5,631 -3% CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 1342 1405 RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 3 7,597 -11% 7,885 -10% CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 886 953 STOCKTON HEATH 2 5,959 4% 6,066 4% CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 591 621 WESTBROOK 2 5,844 2% 6,566 13% CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 1772 1856 WHITTLE HALL 3 7,713 -10% 8,018 -8% Chapelford & Old Ha CROFT CULCHETH GLAZEBURY & 1772 1886 WHITTLE HALL 1 2,632 -10% Whittle Hall & Omega CROFT

FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 1895 1981 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 1859 1951 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 1703 1781 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 2039 2132 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 750 893 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 1206 1387 FAIRFIELD & HOWLEY 514 557

ORFORD 1715 1816 ORFORD 946 989 ORFORD 1250 1307 ORFORD 1078 1135 ORFORD 1082 1131 ORFORD 1858 1959

POPLARS & HULME 1872 1957 POPLARS & HULME 1462 1558 POPLARS & HULME 1484 1584 POPLARS & HULME 1057 1110 POPLARS & HULME 1049 1097 POPLARS & HULME 742 776 POPLARS & HULME 95 99

POULTON NORTH 2558 2675

POULTON NORTH 2435 2547

POULTON NORTH 846 885

POULTON NORTH 817 854

POULTON NORTH 1079 1128

POULTON SOUTH 1161 1214

POULTON SOUTH 1821 2239

POULTON SOUTH 1815 1928

POULTON SOUTH 508 531

RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 1115 1178

RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 482 506 RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 2835 2980 RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 911 953 RIXTON AND WOOLSTON 2113 2209

WESTBROOK 1944 2033

WESTBROOK 1864 2753

WESTBROOK 1354 1416 APPLETON 1394 1495 APPLETON 2574 2691 APPLETON 1036 1087 APPLETON 2909 3046 APPLETON 534 558

BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 1384 1447 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 992 1151 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 1194 1276 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 508 1234 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 842 891 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 531 555 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 907 984 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 1678 1772 BEWSEY & WHITECROSS 1178 1244

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 1935 2035

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 1072 1124

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 1481 1549

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 1056 1104

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 283 298

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 1435 1517

GRAPPENHALL & THELWALL 551 576

GREAT SANKEY NORTH 2666 3054

GREAT SANKEY NORTH 2397 2506

GREAT SANKEY SOUTH 3321 3472

GREAT SANKEY SOUTH 1079 1128

GREAT SANKEY SOUTH 2040 2173

GREAT SANKEY SOUTH 1749 1832

HATTON STRETTON & WALTON 270 286 HATTON STRETTON & WALTON 914 958 HATTON STRETTON & WALTON 613 641 HATTON STRETTON & WALTON 401 450 HATTON STRETTON & WALTON 328 343

LATCHFORD EAST 867 993 LATCHFORD EAST 3343 3615 LATCHFORD EAST 1204 1447 LATCHFORD EAST 1100 1173

LATCHFORD WEST 2020 2112 LATCHFORD WEST 1033 1124 LATCHFORD WEST 2781 3061

LYMM 2447 2576 LYMM 3228 3429 LYMM 1446 1526 LYMM 1239 1295 LYMM 1580 1664

PENKETH & CUERDLEY 97 101 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 1264 1323 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 1461 1528 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 1249 1400 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 1973 2065 PENKETH & CUERDLEY 918 960

STOCKTON HEATH 984 1029

STOCKTON HEATH 1417 1485

STOCKTON HEATH 1430 1598

STOCKTON HEATH 1147 1199

WHITTLE HALL 1938 2520

WHITTLE HALL 1926 2014

WHITTLE HALL 2260 2723

WHITTLE HALL 2052 2152

WHITTLE HALL 1400 1464

WHITTLE HALL 608 727

The Review Officer,

Dear Review Officer,

I write as a Stockton Heath Councillor and I wish to object to the proposal for a new Stockton Heath Borough Ward. The Ward Boundary is currently co‐terminus with that of Stockton Heath Parish Boundary, and has been for as long as I can remember.

There is a very strong partnership working between Borough and Parish Councillors which benefits the residents of Stockton Heath. Your proposal moves part of Stockton Heath Parish area into Grappenhall Borough Ward and adds in part of Appleton Parish and part of Walton Parish.

I am concerned that this will inevitably destroy partnership working to the detriment of Stockton Heath residents. I understand the need to improve electoral equality and I believe Lymm Parish Council has proposed an alternative way to achieve this without destroying the link between Parish Boundaries and Borough Ward Boundaries. I request you adopt this in place of your proposal.

Yours sincerely, pamela Todd

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Warrington

Personal Details:

Name: Judith Wheeler

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am a Borough and Parish Council for Appleton. I was born in Appleton and have lived there for most of my life. I am not proposing any ideas for boundary changes but I want to comment on your poposed changes. You are ignoring a natural boundary (Bridgewater Canal) by taking some porperites in Appleton and putting them in Stockton Heasth. You are moving the village that takes Appleton as part of its name (Appleton Thorn) and moving it into Grappenhall. You are moving Stretton, Hatton and Walton into Appleton. The first two are possibly acceptable but Walton has far more affinity with Stockton Health, particularly as its most populated area is coterminous with Stockton Heath. The Parish of Appleton is wholly contained within the electoral ward of Appleton. It is a cohesive entity and Councillors can work with the Parish Council. With your changes, Councillors in Appleton will have to work with the parishes of Hatton, Stretton, Walton and Appleton. This is going to be extremely difficult and does not make for community cohesion. Finally, Appleton is inevitably going to undergo significant house building in the next few years. You are making a ward which at the moment has parity into a ward which in 2020 may be significantly underrepresented by Councillors. By changing the boundaries now, they may have to be rethought again in a few years’ time.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6148 19/10/2015