LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND
REVIEW OF WEST YORKSHIRE
THE CITY OF WAKEFIELD Boundaries with:- LEEDS KIRKLEES BARNSLEY DONCASTER SELBY (North Yorkshire)
SELBY
KIRKLEES WAKEFIELD
DONCASTER
REPORT NO.600 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 600 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND
CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton
MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals
Mr G Prentice
Mrs H R V Sarkany
Mr C W Smith
Professor K Young Wakefield.BC
THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
REVIEW OF METROPOLITAN COUNTIES AND DISTRICTS
THE CITY OF WAKEFIELD AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH LEEDS, KIRKLEES, BARNSLEY, DONCASTER AND SELBY
COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS
INTRODUCTION
1 . On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Wakefield City Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Wakefield as part of our review of the Metropolitan County of West Yorkshire and its Districts under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of our letter were sent to the adjoining Metropolitan Authorities; the County and District Councils bordering West Yorkshire; to parish councils in Wakefield and the adjoining districts; to the Local Authority Associations; Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities and statutory undertakers which might have an interest, as well as to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and the local television and radio stations serving the area.
2. The Metropolitan Authorities were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other principal authorities, to assist us in publishing the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The authorities were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those involved with services such as the police and administration of justice. 3. A period of seven months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities and any person or body interested in the review to send us their views on whether changes to Wakefield's boundary were desirable - and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act.
THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US
4. In response to our letter, Wakefield City Council indicated that it did not wish to suggest any changes to its existing boundaries. However we received representations from the City of Leeds, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Kirklees, Barnsley, and.Doncaster and the District of Selby. We also received representations from South Kirkby and Moorthorpe Town Council and South Elmsall Town Council.
5. The representations made to us have suggested only minor changes to Wakefield's boundaries and we ourselves consider that, taken as a whole, the existing area of the City is apt for securing effective and convenient local government. We have decided therefore to propose no major change to Wakefield's boundaries; our proposals for minor changes are set out below.
SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND LEEDS
Draft Proposals
(a) Castleford
6. Leeds had suggested a minor adjustment to its present boundary with Wakefield, so as to unite in Wakefield a chemical works, parts of which are situated on both banks of the River Aire. 7. We noted that the existing boundary divides the chemical works and decided to adopt Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a modification to replace a stretch of defaced boundary, to unite the works in Wakefield.
(b) Fairies Hill
8. Leeds had suggested a minor adjustment to its present boundary with Wakefield so as to follow the mid-course of the River Calder.
9. We considered that the suggested realignment would provide a well-defined boundary. We therefore decided to adopt Leeds' suggestion as our draft proposal.
(c) Area between the River Calder and the M1 near Lofthouse
10. Leeds had suggested amending its boundary with Wakefield in the vicinity of Fenton Road, Lingwell Gate Lane and Newmarket Silkstone, to remove anomalies.
11. We considered that, while the proposed amendments would each go some way to rectifying the existing anomalies, they would when taken in combination result in an even more unsatisfactory boundary. We concluded that the M1 and M62 would provide a better and more clearly defined boundary in this area between Kirkhamgate and the River Calder and therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to that effect.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND KIRKLEES
Draft Proposals
(a) Pildacre Mills
12. Kirklees had suggested realigning its boundary with Wakefield in order to unite an industrial complex, known as Pildacre Mills, in Wakefield. 13. We felt that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to unite the complex in one authority and decided to adopt Kirklees1 suggestion as our draft proposal.
(b) Pildacre Lane
14. Kirklees had suggested amending its boundary with Wakefield so as to unite dwellings and gardens, which form part of a Kirklees- owned residential estate, together with a length of Pildacre Lane which provides access to it, in Kirklees.
15. We considered that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government both to unite these properties and gardens in one authority and to transfer that stretch of Pildacre Lane which provides access to the estate. We therefore decided to adopt Kirklees' suggestion as our draft proposal.
(c) Mitchell Laithes Hospital
16. Kirklees had suggested realigning the boundary with Wakefield so as to unite the now redundant Mitchell Laithes Hospital in its area.
17. As the existing boundary splits the site of the hospital, the larger proportion of which lies in Kirklees, we decided to adopt Kirklees1 suggestion as our draft proposal.
(d) Mitchell Laithes Sewage Works
18. Kirklees had suggested the realignment of its boundary with Wakefield along the River Calder to form a more identifiable boundary, uniting the Mitchell Laithes Sewage Works complex in Wakefield. 19. We noted that the present boundary follows an arbitrary route through the sewage works, crossing sludge beds and dividing the sewage works between two authorities. We therefore decided to adopt Kirklees1 suggestion that the works be united in Wakefield as our draft proposal.
(e) Healey Mills Marshalling Yard
20. Kirklees had suggested that its present boundary with Wakefield be realigned to follow the centre of the course of the River Calder, placing the whole of the British Rail marshalling yard in Wakefield.
21 . The River Calder appears to have been diverted from its original course over the passage of time and, as a result, the present boundary now follows an arbitrary line curving through the marshalling yard. We felt that it would be sensible and in the interests of effective and convenient local government to unite the area in Wakefield. We therefore decided to adopt Kirklees' suggestion as our draft proposal.
(f) Disused Railway
22. Kirklees had suggested realigning its boundary with Wakefield along the line of a disused railway, located to the north west of the B6117 Hostingley Lane, to a point where an agricultural access road passed over it at Hostingley Farm.
23. We noted that the main aim of the proposal was to establish a more identifiable boundary. However, it would further narrow an existing Kirklees salient into Wakefield. We concluded that it would be more beneficial in terms of effective and convenient local government to place the salient in Wakefield by realigning the boundary along a track to the west of Hostingley Farm and then north east along the Calder and Hebble Navigation to the existing boundary. We accordingly decided to issue a draft proposal to that effect. Interim decisions to make no proposals
(g) Chancery Road
24. Kirklees had commented that the construction of a new length of road had resulted in its present boundary with Wakefield at Chancery Road being detrimental to effective highway maintenance. The Borough had therefore suggested a realignment which would rationalise highway maintenance in the area, by transferring a short stretch of Chancery Road to Kirklees.
25. We considered Kirklees1 suggestion but were not convinced that there were sufficient grounds for its adoption in terms of improving effective and convenient local government. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal.
(h) Hardcastle Lane
26. Kirklees had suggested realigning its boundary with Wakefield near the Grange Lane and Hardcastle Lane areas in order to establish a logical break point for highway maintenance. However, Wakefield had opposed the suggestion on the grounds that it would involve the transfer of a block of properties which, it was claimed, had more affinity with Wakefield, than with Kirklees.
27. We considered that it was not in the interest of effective and convenient local government to transfer a block of properties to Kirklees whose residents might have more affinity with Wakefield, solely to facilitate highway maintenance. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND BARNSLEY
Draft Proposals
(a) River Dearne, Haigh
28. Barnsley had suggested realigning its present boundary with Wakefield to conform with the altered course of the River Dearne.
29. We agreed that a realignment of the boundary along the River Dearne would tie the boundary to a clear physical feature. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.
(b) Woolley Colliery and Windhill Lane
30. Barnsley had suggested realigning its boundary with Wakefield in the vicinity of Woolley Colliery and associated washery. It proposed that an area incorporating the Colliery, properties in Bluebell Road and the Windhill Estate, Woolley Rabbit Warren and the rear of properties on Warren Lane, should be transferred to Barnsley. The Council had claimed that all of this area had a greater community of interest with Barnsley than with Wakefield.
31 . However, Wakefield objected to the suggestion on the grounds that it would affect a block of residential properties and that the affinities of the residents of these properties lay with Wakefield.
32. We considered that, on the evidence before us the area did have a greater affinity with Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal subject to minor amendments, including the transfer to Barnsley of a small area to the West of Woolley Edge Lane, in order to provide a more clearly identifiable boundary. (c) Staincross Golf Course
33. Barnsley had suggested amending its boundary with Wakefield to unite the Staincross Golf Course in its area.
34. We agreed that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to unite the Golf Course in one authority. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal.
(d) Dismantled railway, north of Royston
35. Barnsley had suggested realigning its present boundary with Wakefield, to follow the northern edge of a dismantled railway north of Royston.
36. We noted that Barnsley's suggestion would remove an obvious anomaly where the boundary criss-crosses the railway bed. We therefore decided to adopt it as our draft proposal, subject to minor amendments to remove a length of defaced boundary.
(e) Monkton Coke and Chemical Company
37. Barnsley had suggested realigning its boundary with Wakefield to unite in its area the industrial premises adjacent to Royston.
38. We concluded that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to unite the site in one authority. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a minor modification to avoid creating an undefined boundary along part of its length. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD, BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER
Draft Proposal
Burnt Wood Lane, Burnt Wood Hall and Howell Wood
39. Barnsley had suggested the realignment of its boundary with Wakefield to make it more readily identifiable, by realigning it round the edge of a field adjacent to Howell Wood.
40. Doncaster had made an alternative suggestion, to unite Howell Wood and Burnt Hall Estate in Doncaster. However, South Kirkby and Moorthorpe Town Council had objected to Doncaster's suggestion and, instead, had suggested that the whole of the area be united in Wakefield.
41. We considered all the evidence submitted and acknowledged that the present Barnsley/Wakefield boundary was obscure in this area. We concluded that realigning it round the edge of the field adjacent to Howell Wood would make it more readily identifiable. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal, subject to a modification to transfer the Ranger's Office and Burnt Wood Lane to Doncaster.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND THE DISTRICT OF SELBY IN THE COUNTY OF NORTH YORKSHIRE
Draft Proposals
(a) The A1
42. We noted that the A1 runs close to the Wakefield/Selby boundary and that it is to be further upgraded over the next few years. We also noted that where the road is in close proximity to the boundary it appears to form a major barrier to movement between the two authorities. We therefore decided to use the A1 south of the M62 as the boundary between Wakefield and Selby, with a minor deviation to leave Darrington united in Wakefield, and to issue a draft proposal to that effect.
(b) The boundary in the vicinity of Knottingley
43. We noted that the present boundary east and south of Knottingley follows no clear features and appeared to be defaced in places. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal to realign it to follow the M62 east from the A1, transferring the area as far as Sudforth Lane to Wakefield.
Interim decision to make no proposals
South Elmsall
44. South Elmsall Town Council had suggested that the present boundary with Selby be amended so as to bring within the Town Council's area all properties with a South Elmsall postal address.
45. We considered that the Town Council had produced insufficient reason for its suggestion and, as the village does not appear to be divided by the present boundary, there seemed little justification for amending the boundary in this area. We therefore took an interim decision to make no proposal.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS
46. The letter announcing our draft proposals and interim decisions was published on 8 May 1989. Copies were sent to the local authorities concerned and to all those who had made representations to us. The Cities of Wakefield and Leeds, the Boroughs of Kirklees, Barnsley and Doncaster, the County of North Yorkshire and the District of Selby, were asked to publish a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were
10 also asked to place copies of our letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 3 July 1989.
RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS/INTERIM DECISIONS
47. We received representations from 37 sources in response to our draft proposals. These included comments from Wakefield City Council, Leeds City Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Kirklees, Barnsley and Doncaster, North Yorkshire County Council and Selby District Council. We also received comments from the Parish Councils of Shafton, Sitlington, Woolley, Havercroft-with-Cold Hiendley, Darrington, Upton and North Elmsall, Kirk Smeaton and Beal, Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse MP, the Rt Hon Michael Alison MP, Councillor R Fogden, other interested organisations and 16 members of the public.
FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS
48. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us and set out below details of our further draft proposals and final proposals.
49. In the light of our consideration of the representations received, we felt it appropriate to issue further draft proposals in respect of Wakefield's boundaries with Kirklees, Barnsley and Doncaster. These further draft proposals, and the reasons which led us to make them, are discussed in the appropriate paragraphs below.
50. Our further draft proposals letter was issued on 18 May 1990. The local authorities concerned were asked to ensure that it received the same publicity as our original draft proposals. Copies of our letter were also sent to all those who had made representations to us on the issues covered by our further draft proposals. Comments were invited by 6 July 1990.
11 OUR FINAL PROPOSALS AND DECISIONS
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND LEEDS
Proposals for Change
(a) Castleford
51. Wakefield and Leeds both supported our draft proposal to unite a chemical works in Wakefield. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
(b) Fairies Hill
52. Wakefield and Leeds both supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary in this area along the mid-course of the River Calder. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
(c) Area between the River Calder and the Ml near Lofthouse
53. Wakefield supported the principle of our draft proposal to use the M1 and M62 between Kirkhamgate and the River Calder. However, the Council suggested a minor amendment which would leave the Lofthouse area united in Leeds. It also requested that the M1 and M62 be left within Wakefield as that Council is responsible for their highway maintenance.
54. Leeds objected to our draft proposal on the grounds of disruption to, and a potential reduction in, the provision of local authority services to the area if it were transferred to Wakefield. It also objected to Lofthouse being divided between Wakefield and Leeds. A further objection to our draft proposal was received from the Chairman of Lofthouse A P Welfare, who also objected to the division of Lofthouse.
12 55. In view of the community of interest which Lofthouse appears to have with Leeds, we agree that it should remain united in that authority. Accordingly, we have confirmed our draft proposal subject to this modification.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND KIRKLEES
Proposals for Change
(a) Pildacre Mills
56. Both Wakefield and Kirklees supported our draft proposal to unite Pildacre Mills in Wakefield. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
(b) Pildacre Lane
57. Both Wakefield and Kirklees supported our draft proposal to unite a Kirklees-owned housing estate in that authority and to transfer that stretch of Pildacre Lane which provides access to it. In view of this, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.
(c) Mitchell Laithes Hospital
58. Both Wakefield and Kirklees supported our draft proposal to unite Mitchell Laithes Hospital in Kirklees. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
(d) Mitchell Laithes Sewage Works
59. Both Wakefield and Kirklees accepted our draft proposal to unite the sewage works in Wakefield. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
13 (e) Healey Mills Marshalling Yard.
60. Both Wakefield and Kirklees Councils supported our draft proposal to unite the marshalling yard in Wakefield. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
(f) Disused Railway
61 . Kirklees and Sitlington Parish Council supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary along a disused railway. However, Wakefield suggested that the draft proposal be extended to unite that smaller part of Healey Mills marshalling yard, to the north west of the River Calder, with the main yard in Wakefield, on the grounds of access. We agreed that the existing and future use of this site would benefit from its unification with the main part of the marshalling yard under a single authority. We therefore decided to issue a further draft proposal for this area, taking Wakefield1s suggestion into account.
62. In response to our further draft proposal for the disused railway and marshalling yard, we received comments from Wakefield and from Kirklees. Both authorities supported the proposal that the whole of the marshalling yard complex be united in Wakefield. We have consequently confirmed our further draft proposal as final.
(g) Chancery Road
63. Our interim decision not to propose the transfer of a short stretch of Chancery Road to Kirklees was opposed by both Wakefield and Kirklees; both stated that the current boundary causes highway maintenance problems. We noted that the suggestions from each of the Councils to overcome the maintenance difficulties seemed sensible. However, in view of Wakefield's responsibility for the maintenance of Watson Avenue, we felt that its suggestion seemed to present the better solution. We therefore decided to issue a further draft proposal based on Wakefield's suggestion.
14 64. Our further draft proposal for Chancery Road was supported by both Wakefield and Kirklees. We have consequently decided to confirm it as final.
Decision to make no proposals
(h) Hardcastle Lane
65. Kirklees opposed our interim decision and resubmitted its original suggestion for a realignment of its boundary with Wakefield in the area of Grange Lane and Hardcastle Lane to facilitate highway maintenance. However, as no new evidence was produced to support the suggestion, we have decided to confirm our interim decision as final.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND BARNSLEY
Proposals for change
(a) River Dearne. (b) Woolley Colliery and Windhill Lane
66. We considered these proposals jointly as they were linked in the representations made to us.
67. We considered a suggestion from Shafton Parish Council which proposed uniting in Barnsley an area containing disused railway lines. The suggestion was not supported by Barnsley and was opposed by Wakefield. We felt that the suggestion would not result in any obvious improvement in effective and convenient local government and decided not to pursue it.
68. Barnsley supported the principle of our draft proposal in respect of the River Dearne but suggested a minor amendment to remove a finger of land extending from Wakefield into its area. Barnsley fully supported the Woolley Colliery draft proposal, as did the South Yorkshire Police.
15 69. Wakefield, however, submitted an alternative suggestion which, it claimed, would protect Woolley Colliery and its immediate surroundings, including the River Dearne, and retain it within Wakef ield. The City Council also reiterated its view that the affinities of the residents of Woolley Colliery Village and Windhill Lane rested with Wakefield. This was supported by 210 responses to a questionnaire issued by Wakefield, out of which only 22 were in favour of our draft proposal. Similarly, Woolley Parish Council submitted a petition bearing 226 signatures in opposition to our draft proposal. We also received an objection from the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority. However, Barnsley objected to Wakefield's alternative suggestion on the grounds that it ignored geographical realities.
70. We noted that Barnsley's suggested extension to the River Dearne part of our proposal, would unite a potential industrial development site. We therefore decided to issue a further draft proposal to take account of Barnsley's suggestion. However, we did not feel that any new evidence had been produced in respect of our draft proposal for Woolley Colliery and Windhill Lane and have accordingly decided to confirm it as final.
71. Barnsley supported the principle of our further draft proposal, but requested it be further extended to include an additional area which might be subject to future development.
72. Wakefield opposed our further draft proposal and reiterated its opposition to our Woolley Colliery proposal. However, following reconsideration of the evidence before us, we decided to confirm our draft proposal to transfer the area to Barnsley. In view of this, and the fact that there is no imminent development planned for the additional area sought by Barnsley, we have also decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.
16 (b) Staincross Golf Course
73. Wakefield, Barnsley and the South Yorkshire Police supported our draft proposal to unite Staincross Golf Course in Barnsley. We have therefore confirmed it as final.
(c) Dismantled railway, north of Royston
74. Wakefield and Barnsley both supported our draft proposal to realign the boundary along a disused railway north of Royston. We have therefore confirmed it as final.
(d) Monkton Coke and Chemical Company
75. Our draft proposal to unite the site of the Monkton Coke and Chemical Company in Barnsley was supported in principle by Wakefield. However, the City Council suggested that the draft proposal should only extend as far as Lund Hill Lane, leaving Royston Drift and Rabbit Ings in its area. This, the Council argued, would allow joint development of the site with the Ellis Laithes land reclamation project to the north.
76. Barnsley, in supporting the draft proposal, opposed Wakefield's counter-suggestion on the grounds that it would aggravate the anomaly in the present boundary.
77. Havercroft-with-Cold Hiendley Parish Council opposed our draft proposal, claiming that there would be no significant advantage to be gained if the area was united in Barnsley.
78. We considered that the justification given by Wakefield to retain Royston Drift and Rabbit Ings did not seem a sufficiently compelling reason to warrant amending our draft proposal. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
17 THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD, BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER
Proposal for change
Burnt Wood Lane, Burnt Wood Hall and Howell Wood
79. Barnsley and Doncaster both supported our draft proposal in this area. We have therefore decided to confirm it as final.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND SELBY IN THE COUNTY OF NORTH YORKSHIRE
Proposals for change
(a) The A1
80. Our draft proposal to realign the boundary along the A1 south of the M62 was supported in principle by Wakef ield and Selby. However, both authorities suggested amendments.
81 . We considered the view of the two Councils that North Lodge Lane has close links with Darrington, and Wakefield1s view that the land south of the M62 looked more to Wakefield than Selby. However, we did not consider Wakefield's further suggested amendment, to retain West Park Caravan Site in its area, to be justified in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have accordingly confirmed our draft proposal as final subject to modifications in respect of North Lodge Lane and the land south of the M62.
(b) The boundary in the vicinity of Knottingley
82. We received objections from Wakefield, Selby, North Yorkshire County Council, Beal Parish Council and seven residents, to our draft proposal to realign the boundary along the M62 east from the A1 . Additionally, Mr Geoffrey Lofthouse MP forwarded two letters of objection and the Rt Hon Michael Alison MP forwarded a 120 signature petition opposing the draft proposal. Most of the objections were
18 based on the affinity of Kellingley with Selby, as opposed to Wakefield.
83. We noted the strong opposition to the transfer of the village i of Kellingley to Wakefield. In view of residents' expressions-of community of interest with Selby, we have decided to confirm our draft proposal only as far as east of Stubbs Bridge, retaining the existing boundary so as to leave Kellingley in Selby.
Decision to make no proposal
(c) South Elmsall
84. We received no comments in respect of our interim decision. We have therefore confirmed it as final.
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WAKEFIELD AND DONCASTER
Proposals for change
(a) Tongue End - Wrangbrook Lane
85. We considered a new suggestion from Wakefield to transfer an area known as Tongue End from Doncaster to Wakefield. We felt that the proposal would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government and therefore decided to issue a further draft proposal to that effect.
86. In response to our further draft proposal, both Wakefield and North Yorkshire County Council supported the proposed transfer. No comments were received from Doncaster. We have accordingly decided to confirm our further draft proposal as final.
19 CONCLUSIONS
87. Our final proposals and conclusions on the review of the boundaries of Wakefield are set out:
in paragraphs 51-55 in respect of the Wakefield/Leeds boundary;
in paragraphs 56-65 in respect of the Wakefield/Kirklees boundary;
in paragraphs 66-78 in respect of the Wakefield/Barnsley boundary;
in paragraph 79 in respect of the Wakefield/Barnsley/ Doncaster boundary;
in paragraphs 80-84 in respect of the Wakefield/Selby boundary; and
in paragraphs 85-86 in respect of the Wakefield/Doncaster boundary.
We commend them to you as being apt for securing effective and convenient local government.
PUBLICATION
88. A separate letter is being sent to the Cities of Wakefield and Leeds; the Metropolitan Boroughs of Kirklees, Barnsley and Doncaster, the District Council of Selby and North Yorkshire County Council, asking them to deposit copies of this report at their main offices for inspection for a period of six months. They are also asked to put notices to that effect on public notice boards. Arrangements have been made for similar notices to appear in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in this matter, and that it now falls to you to make
20 an order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than six weeks from the date our final proposals are submitted to you. Copies of this report are also being sent to all those who received our draft and further draft proposals letters of 8 May 1989 and 18 May 1990, and to those who made written representations.
21 Signed G J ELLERTON (Chairman)
K F J ENNALS
G R PRENTICE
HELEN SARKANY
C W SMITH
PROFESSOR K YOUNG
R D COMPTON Secretary 24 January 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND METROPOLITAN BOUNDARY REVIEW CITY OF WAKEFIELD
AFFECTING DONCASTER MB, BARNSLEY MB, KIRKLEES MB, CITY OF LEEDS AND SELBY DISTRICT
FINAL PROPOSALS
Existing Boundary Proposed Boundary Other boundary divisions
Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM
ICITY OF LEEDSr NORTH YORKSHIRE • .• vomit V • • Mao 19 MORLEY AND. LEEDl SOUTH I™"M 'J M ,R Map ia ::|SELBY DISTRICT N
f ••••""*'*" ; lMop
NORMANT0N CC ' . Hannah P0.NJEF8AG1 ^"'-^v^' -:.-" .^S^A" M I~C ' -^'\.^-. • '' V "
/5eW criiii WEST YORKSHIREI "•"""
WAKEFIELD
- . ,'No/tdn-'- '• j ^ .. .^.-,
DONCASTER MBk =.
BARNSLEY SOUTH YORKSHIRE CITY OF WAKEFIELD
Woolley Colliery
BARNSLEY MB
CJ Crown Copyright 1991 iV \v. \ - v / ~> /. . -A CITY OF WAKEFIELD
Woolley Colliery
^
BARNSLEY MB CITY OF WAKEF1ELD
3 8= s
See Map 5
/--v, ;•';,
BARNSLEY MB CITY OF WAKEFIELD
BARNSLEY MB OF WAKEFIELD COLD HIENOLE'
BARNSLEY MB
Crown Copyright 1991 MI-^ tf ' ! CITY OF WAKEFIELD
BARNSLEY MB Map 8 [CITY OF WAKEFIELDl
lArea.Al
! Sl \-v.'^*"^ .. r-""' 7 ,t . '"'•--. ^§s^ / > . ' ""-->^L7 i"1 1 ' C i | i i 1 ;l \$f >' ' • - ' .,-.----- ""''-->^\. / l *• 1 ^ I 1 V , ' ; .^••••"V •' '•-. "%. / ^r \ i \ . \ ' i 1 ^,--- -.. _,|-. :. ..^Sj;, - /. .- s ' I ' .-•••'!-'•- - \ i ' " - : "x--^si
IDONCASTER MB
L ' Howell Wood Counlry Park
IBARNSLEY MB]
; Ho wet I Woo © C.own Copyright 1991
STAPLETON CF
SELBY DISTRICT
CITY OF WAKEFIELD CITY OF WAKEFIELD
Crown Copyright (991 CITY OF WAKEFIELD \ICITY OF WAKEFIELDl
CRIDLING UBBS 1C P
SELBY DISTRICT
Crown Copyright 199) \\ SELBY DISTRICT
CITY OF WAKEFIELD CITY OF LEEDS
CITY OF WAKEFIELD
Area A --
Crown Copyright 1991 CITY OF LEEDS CITY OF LEEDS %'aT~^r i^rnr r*0'?^"'/-^*^^ CITY OF WAKEFIELD CITY OF LEEDS ^^;?mtrL~=^<^-^' ^frff-, 7-^ AV '•^/ "'
-
CITY OF LEEDS
CITY OF WAKEFIELD CITY OF WAKEFIELD
Area A1... , ••" ]i V7 \ -rtKvp* *»••!»• M»» '. / •
~~J // r/ I 3(1!! ^ KIRKLEES MB
—n ~ <--/-/ ;! PILDACRE LANE :":':!
CITY OF WAKEFIELD V \MIIcnell LoittiM Hospital
KIRKLEES MB
fc-"-—^_ _ |[_ ^*%j I .miiiiim '-^i^... -; lj-"""" iJ lit ii.l .-?z~-=ua ....-»
CITY OF WAKEFIELD
\&?^ Sewage Works
"->»*.. ^5=<:
Proposed boundary from A-B follows centre of river which may be al variance with the existing Ward boundary. It is not possible to show minor changes at this scale. Areas B-C are the only prac -ttcable changes that can be depicted on this map WAKEFIELD CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES
MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Wesl Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire Courtly South Yorkshire County CMy of Wakefleld Barnsley MB H City of Wokefleld Barnsley MB Wast Brellon CP non-parlshed area l l Havercrofl with Cold Hiendley CP non-parished area Wakefleld Rural Ward Darton Ward Hansworth Ward Royston Ward 1 b Wesl Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB 1 City of Wakefleld Bornsley MB c Woolley CP non-parlshed area J South Hiendlcy CP Shaflon CP Wakefield Rural Ward Darton Ward Hansworth Word Brlerley Ward
W«st Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB 2 C City of Wokefleld Barnsley MB Woolley CP non-parlih«d area H Hovercraft with Cold Hiendley CF non-parlshed area Wakefiald Rural Ward Darlon Ward Hansworth Ward 7 Royston Ward West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County W«sl Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County 3 A City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB 1 City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB Notton CP non-parished area J Soulh Hlendley CP Shafton CP Wakefleld South Ward Darton Word Hansworth Ward Brierley Ward A West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Soulh Yorkshire County r\ City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB City of Wakefleld Doncaster MB Notton CP non-parished area South Kirk by and Moorthorpe CP Clayton with Frlcklcy CP Wakefleld South Ward Rayston Ward South Ki/kby Word Richmond Ward 8 R West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB E Notton CP non-parlshed area South Klrkby and Moorthorpe CP Great Hough ton CP 5 Wakefleld South Ward Royston Ward South Klrkby Ward Dar field Ward r South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County Barnsley MB City of Wakefl«lda Doncaster MB City of Wgkefleld n non-parlshed area Notion CP Hompoie CP North Emsall CP i_/ Royston Ward Wakefleld South Ward Richmond Ward Soulh Emsall Ward
West Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County South Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County City of Wakefleld Barnsley MB R Doncosler MB City of Wakefield Notion CP non-parished area Norton CP North Emsall CP Wakefleld South Word 4 6 Royston Ward Askern Ward South Emsall Ward South Yorkshire County Wesl Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County I F Barnsley MB City of Wakofleld Selby District City of Wakefield I r non-parlshed area Notton CP Kirk Smeaton CP North Ermall CP Royston Ward Wakefleld South Ward Whltley Ward South Emsall Ward Osgoldcross ED - CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES
MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Wesl Yorkshire Counly Selby District Clly of Wukefleld Selby District Clly of Wakefield Kirk Smeaton CP North Emsall CP Cridling Stubbs CP non-parfshed area *+r 13 G c W hi Hey Ward Whitley Word - Knottingley Ward _South Emsall Ward Osgoldcross £0 Osgoldcross ED - 10 West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County West Yorkshire Counly City of Wakefield Selby District Selby District City of Wakefield D Darrlngton CP Stapleton CP 14 G Cridling Stubbs CP non-parished area Pontefracl South Ward Whitley Word Whitley Ward Knottingley Ward • Osgoldcross ED Osgoldcross ED ™ West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County City of Wakefield Selby District D Darrlngton CP Staplelon CP Ponl«froct South Ward Whitley Ward - Osgoldcross ED 11 1 1 West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County City of Wakefield Selby District E Darrlngton CP Cridling Slubbs Cp Ponlefract South Ward Whitley Ward Osgoldcross ED Weil Yorkshire County North Yorkshire County Clly of Wakefield Selby District E Darrlnglon CP Crldllng Slubbs CP Pontefract South Word Whitley Ward - Osgoldcross ED
West Yorkshire County North Yorkshire Counly City of Wakefield Selby District 11 ?£- non-parlshed area Crldllng Slubbs CP Knotllngley Ward Whitley Ward Osgoldcross ED North Yorkshire County Wesl Yorkshire County Selby District City of Wake lie Id G Crldllng Stubbs CP non-parlshed area Whllley Word Knotllngley Ward Osgoldcross ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES
MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF NO. REF. Cily of Wakefield Cily of Leeds City of Wok«field City of Leeds C-j 1 Ledslon CP non-porlshed area w J Morley Soulh Ward Stanley ond Wrenthorpe Ward 15 A Berwick ond Kippox Word Caslleford ond Glasshoughton 20 Ward H Cily of Wakefield Cily of Leeds Stanley ond Wrenthorpe Word Morley South Ward City of Leeds City of Wakefielda A non-porlsh«d area Normanton CP Kirkleei MB Cily of Wokefield 16 Garforth and Swillinglon Ward Stanley and Altofts Ward 21 A Dewsbury East Ward Ojsetl Ward Cily of Wakefield Clly of Leeds City of Wokefield Ktrklees MB Rolhwell Word A Ossell Ward Oewsbury Easl Ward 17 A Stanley ond Altofls Ward 22 City of Leeds Clly of Wakefleld R Kirklees MB City of Wokefield Rolhwell Ward Stanley and Allofis Ward Dewsbury East Ward Ossell Ward Itt Kirklees MB City of Wokefield Clly of Leeds City of Wakefield Oewsbury East Ward Ossett Ward Mlddlelon Ward Stanley and Altofls Ward Kirklees MB City of Wakefield Clly of Leeds City of Wokefield 2J Thornhlll Ward Ossetl Word B Mlddicton Ward Stanley and Altofts Ward B C Cily of Wakefield Kirklees MB Cily of Wokefield City of Leeds D Ossell Word Dewsbury East Ward C Stanley ond Wrenthorpe Ward Mlddlelon Ward 19 Klrklees MB City of Wokefield City of Watceiield City of Leeds 24 A Ossett Ward D F Stanley and Wrenthorpc Ward Morley South Ward "Thornhlll Wqrd
City of Leedt City of Wokeflfild G Morlay South Ward Stanley ond Wrenthorpe Ward
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES
Boundary between Wakefield and Leeds
Castleford Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 51 a Chemical Works in Map 15 Wakefield Fairies Hill Minor realignment along Paragraph 52 mid-course of the Map 16 River Calder
Area between the Realignment of boundary Paragraph 55 River Calder and to M1 and M62 but Lofthouse Maps 17, 18, 19, the Ml near to remain united in Leeds and 20 Lofthouse Boundary between Wakefield and Kirklees
Pildacre Mills Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 56 Pildacre Mills in Map 22 Wakefield
Pildacre Lane Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 57 a housing estate and its Map 22 access in Kirklees Mitchell Laithes Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 58 Hospital hospital in Kirklees Map 23 Mitchell Laithes Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 59 Sewage Works Sewage Works in Wakefield Map 23 Healey Mills Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 60 Marshalling Yard the Marshalling Yard in Map 24 Wakefield
Disused Railway Minor realignment along a Paragraph 61 disused railway and also Map 24 unification of smaller area of Marshalling Yard
Chancery Road Minor realignment to Paragraph 63 transfer short stretch Map 21 of Chancery Road to Kirklees Boundary between Wakefield and Barnslev
River Dearne Minor realignment to Paragraph 66 conform with altered course Map 1 of River Dearne and also to unite a potential industrial development site in Barnsley
Woolley Colliery Realignment to transfer the Paragraph 66 and Windhill Lane Colliery and surrounding Map 2 areas to Barnsley
Staincross Golf Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 73 Course golf course in Barnsley Map 3 Dismantled Minor realignment along a Paragraph 74 railway, north disused railway Maps 4 and 5 of Royston Monkton Coke and Minor realignment to unite Paragraph 75 Chemical Company site of company in Barnsley Maps 6 and 7
Boundary between Wakefield, Barnslev and Doncaster
Burnt Wood Lane, Minor realignment round Paragraph 79 Burnt Wood Hall edge of field adjacent to Map 8 and Howell Wood Howell Wood and transfer of Rangers Office and Burnt Wood Lane to Doncaster
Boundary between Wakefield and Selbv
The A1 Realignment of boundary Paragraph 80 along the A1 south of the Maps 9, 10-12 M62 with exceptions in respect of North Lodge and land south of the M62
The boundary in Realignment of boundary to Paragraph 82 the vicinity of follow M62 east from A1 as Maps 13 and 14 Knottingley far as east of Stubbs Bridge
Boundary between Wakefield and Doncaster
Tongue End - Minor realignment to Paragraph 85 Wrangbrook Lane transfer area known as Map 9 Tongue End from Doncaster to Wakefield