Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.277 LOCAL G OVERMEN!1 BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND i • REPORT NO. Z77 LOCAL GOVEKNKfOT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN 1 Sir Edmund Compton GCB KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEMBERS Lady Bowdon . Mr J T Brockbank Professor Michael Chishclm Mr R R Thornton CB PL Mr B P'Harris on- To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH .OF BURY 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Bury in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough* , t 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 19V2 Act, notice was given on 28 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Bury Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Greater Manchester County Council, the Members 'of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies, 3. Bury Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of represen- i tation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guide- lines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment* 4. Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that in metropolitan districts elections shall be by thirds. Section 6(2)(b) of the Act requires that every metropolitan district should be divided into wards each returning a number of councillors divisible by three. 5. Bury Borough Council submitted their draft scheme of representation on 23 April 1976. They proposed to divide the area into 16 wards each returning 3 members to form a council of 48. 6. We received two comments on the future electoral arrangements for the borough. A local political party offered a complete alternative scheme of warding. This scheme, like the Council's, proposed 16 wards, each returning 3 members, to form a council of 48. The other comment was from a local councillor disagreeing with the Borough Council's draft scheme on various points. We studied the comments, but they did not appear to offer any advantage over the draft scheme submitted by Bury Borough Council. We decided, therefore, to use the Borough Council's draft scheme as the basis of our draft proposals. We made a number of modifications to the proposed wards to secure improvements in the standard of representation. On the recommendation of Ordnance Survey, we made some minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more easily identifiable on the ground. 7» Subject to the changes referred to in paragraph 6 above, the Bury Borough Council's draft scheme appeared to us to provide a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements of the borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines. We formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 8. On 1 November 19?6 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. Bury Borough Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 28 December 197&. 9« Bury Borough Council informed us that they approved the draft proposals, subject to minor amendments to some of'the proposed wards. i i 10. The local political party which previously submitted the alternative draft scheme mentioned in paragraph 6 above, requested a boundary alteration between the proposed Church and. Elton wards. A local councillor also made proposals for major boundary changes between these two wards. A branch of a local political party made proposals for boundary alterations between the proposed Holyrood, St Mary's and Sedgley wards. 11. A local political party, supported by two neighbouring branches and a local political association requested that the ward boundaries of the proposed Radcliffe South, Philips Park and Unsworth wards should be altered. The effect would be that the areas in question remained with their respective Parliamentary constituencies. The local political associations were also opposed to the name; Philips Park for that ward. 12. ^n view of these comments we decided that we needed further information •to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request, Mr W Pedley was appointed an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 13. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, Bury, on 19 July 1977. A copy (without enclosures) of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 1*f. In the light of the evidence submitted at the meeting and of his inspection of the area the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be adopted subject to a minor alteration to the boundary between the proposed Elton and Ramsbottom wards and the renaming of the proposed Philips Park ward, Pilkington Park ward. 15- we reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to those amendments, we decided that our draft proposals should be confirmed as our final proposals, 16. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. A detailed description, of \ the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3- PUBLICATION 17. In accordance with Section 6o(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to the Bury Metropolitan Borough Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without the map) are being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. L.S. Signed: EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN) i JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) i PHYLLIS BOWDEN J T BROCKBANK i MICHAEL CHISHOLM i D P HARRISON R R THORNTON NEIL DIGNEY (Secretary) / December 1977 SCHEDULE 1 The Secretary, Local Government Boundary Comnission, Room 123, 20 Albert Embankment, LONDON. SE1 ?TJ. Sir, Revisw of Electoral Arrangements Metropolitan Borough of Bury in Greater Manchester In accordance with my appointment by the Secretary of State as an -Assistant Commissioner and pursuant to the instructions contained in your letter of the 9th June, 1977 I have the honour to submit the following report. 1. Date of Meeting A local meeting was held at the Town Hall, Bury on Tuesday the 19th July, 1977 commencing at 1030 hours .and concluding at 1300 hours. It was not considered necessary to undertake visits or inspections other than those referred to in Paragraph 11. These were done privately and before the meeting. I invited those representing the parties which had submitted comments to1 make such further inspections in the afternoon as they might require but no one wished so to do. • ' 2. Attendance The 'signed attendance list accompanies this report . (Annex 1). Those who spoke or participated in the proceedings are listed below: - Metropolitan Borough Mr. E.F. Pethybridge, of Bury: ' Senior Assistant Solicitor with the Chief Executive, Bury M.B. Council. Bury Metropolitan Messrs, B.V/. Lowthian and District Labour H.L. Mellor. Party: Radcliffe Labour ^Party: - . Mr. G. Acraman.-. :.-r Whitefield" Conservative "~ "" Messrs .""A'.S.' Kravi'tz Association: _ .- • and Harrison, .;*;.-• Prestwich'Labour 'Party': " - Mrv* Cordon" C*ohehVA "*"' Each speaker had the opportunity of commenting on what had been said by'others, in addition to making their own views known. ; ,^ . .„. 3* The Commission's Draft Proposals. .. ..-,r._ The draft proposals were based on the Metropolitan Borough Council's, draft Scheme submitted .on the.,23rd ; April, 1976. •_•.... •;. -. The draft.scheme submitted offered an uneven standard of representation in the Radcliffe area. After detailed study, with numerical assistance from the Council1 s: Officers , the Commission decided to modify the Council's scheme in relation "t~o alterations of the boundaries between the proposed Redvales, Radcliffe North, Radcliffe Central, Radcliffe South, Urvsworth, Philips Park, Besses, St.