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.