LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BARNSLEY Boundaries with:- DONCASTER ROTHERHAM KIRKLEES (West Yorkshire) WAKEFIELD (West Yorkshire) HIGH PEAK (Derbyshire) WAKEFIELD KIRKLEES DONCASTER BARNSL :Y HIGH PEAK ROTHERHAM REPORT NO.601 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. 601 * 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 RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY AND DISTRICTS OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE. THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BARNSLEY AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM, AND WITH KIRKLEES AND WAKEFIELD IN WEST YORKSHIRE AND WITH HIGH PEAK IN DERBYSHIRE. COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Barnsley Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Barnsley as part of our review of the Metropolitan .County of South 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 South Yorkshire and to parish councils in Barnsley and the adjoining districts; to the Local Authority Associations; the 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 Boroughs 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 Barnsley'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 of 1 September 1987, we received representations from the Metropolitan Boroughs of Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees and Rotherham. We also received representations from the Parish Councils of Barnburgh, Brampton Bierlow and Denby Dale. 5. We consider that, taken as a whole, the present area of Barnsley is apt for securing effective and convenient local government and we have decided not to make any proposals for major change. Our proposals relate only to minor realignments to the boundaries described in this report. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER AND WAKEFIELD Burnt Wood Lane, Burnt Wood Hall and Howe11 Wood 6. Barnsley had suggested 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. 7. 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. 8. 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, thus uniting the Howell Wood Country Park in that authority. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND DONCASTER (a) Spry Lane 9. Doncaster had suggested that the Borough boundary be amended so that Spry Lane, and an area of agricultural land to the north east, of the Lane, be transferred from Barnsley to Doncaster. This, it argued, would provide a clearly defined boundary and simplify highway maintenance. Barnsley supported Doncaster's suggestion and further suggested that a small boundary anomaly at the north end of Spry Lane be removed by continuing the suggested alignment north, to meet the existing boundary at Howell Lane. 10. We considered that a combination of both Doncaster's and Barnsley's suggestions would simplify highway maintenance and decided to adopt them as the basis of our draft proposal. (b) Chapel Lane 11. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested that, in order to simplify highway administration and maintenance, their boundary be realigned to transfer Chapel Lane from Doncaster to Barnsley. Barnsley stated that the current boundary in this area is anomalous and that while Chapel Lane is located in Doncaster, it is in fact maintained by Barnsley. We agreed with Barnsley's suggestion and decided to adopt it as our draft proposal. (c) Bluebell Wood 12. Barnsley and Doncaster had both suggested that the boundary be realigned to transfer the area known as Bluebell Wood, which is said to be regarded as part of the village of Thurscoe in Barnsley, from Doncaster to Barnsley. 13. We noted that the land is owned by Barnsley and that difficulties had been experienced in the exercise of planning control. We considered that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to transfer the land to Barnsley and therefore decided to adopt that authority's suggestion as our draft proposal. (d) Hickleton Colliery Tip 14. Barnsley and Doncaster had both suggested a realignment of their boundary to transfer the tipping area of Hickleton Colliery from Doncaster to Barnsley. 15. Barnsley had stated that the area is closely allied to the villages of Thurscoe and Goldthorpe in Barnsley and that the Borough wished to make improvements to the area. It said transfer of the tipping area would enable the Borough to carry out remedial work and improve the land for the benefit of local communities. 16. We concluded that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government to transfer the area to Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion'as our draft proposal. (e) Pickhills Avenue 17. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested a realignment to their boundary to unite in Barnsley two properties on Pickhills Avenue. 18. We considered that the properties were rightly part of the village of Goldthorpe, in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion as our draft proposal. (f) Goldthorpe Tip 19. Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested similar realignments to their boundary to transfer the tipping area of Goldthorpe Tip from Doncaster to Barnsley. 20. Barnsley had stated that the area is part of Goldthorpe village in Barnsley and that the Borough wished to carry out remedial work to the site. Additionally, the present boundary is in part obscured by overtipping. 21. We noted the uncertainties caused by the current boundary and agreed that the tipping area should be united in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt Barnsley's suggestion, subject to a technical modification suggested by the Ordnance Survey as our draft proposal. (g) Green Lane, Barnburgh 22. Barnburgh Parish Council (in Doncaster) had suggested an amendment to Barnsley's boundary to transfer Green Lane, Barnburgh from Barnsley to Doncaster. 23. Barnburgh Parish Council had stated that the residents of Green Lane wished to be part of Barnburgh Parish and considered that their community of interest lay with'Doncaster. We agreed that this area appeared to be more closely associated with Barnburgh village than with Goldthorpe in Barnsley. We therefore decided to adopt the Parish Council's suggestion as our draft proposal. (h) BoIton Common 24. Both Barnsley and Doncaster had suggested a similar realignment of the boundary in this area which is currently unidentifiable, and that the mid course of the River Dearne would provide a clear boundary. Doncaster proposed a more extended realignment along the River Dearne. 25. We agreed that the boundary should be realigned to the mid course of the River Dearne and decided to adopt Doncaster's suggestion for a more extended realignment, as our draft proposal. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY, DONCASTER AND ROTHERHAM 26. We noted that a consequence of our draft proposal in respect of Bolton Common would be to produce a gap in the boundary between Doncaster and -Rotherham. Barnsley and Rotherham had both suggested realigning the Barnsley/Doncaster/Rotherham boundary along the Pontefract-Rotherham railway line from Bolton Bridge. 27. Rotherham had also suggested realigning its boundary with Doncaster so as to incorporate Mexborough Road within Doncaster. This would facilitate highway maintenance. 28. We considered all the information before us and concluded that a more readily identifiable boundary would be the eastern embankment of the Pontefract/Rotherham railway line. We therefore decided to adopt Rotherham's suggestion as our draft proposal including its suggestion to incorporate Mexborough Road within Doncaster. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN BARNSLEY AND ROTHERHAM (a) River Dearne/Knoll Beck 29. Barnsley and Rotherham had both suggested realigning their boundary to the course of the River Dearne and Knoll Beck. Barnsley had stated that the current boundary was unidentifiable and that its suggestion, to follow the mid course of the River Dearne, would provide a clear boundary.